Talk:Joseph Smith

synopsis

I added descriptions of major notes about smith's life i.e. the "wanted felon and insurrectionist comment". I know I know I know this is not a fun debate for anyone to have right now but this very article has several points at which smith is quoted supporting insurrection. I haven't added anything to this article that wasn't already here on that point. and there are several other points where his dealings in the banking scandal and out running a warrant are mentioned. so I haven't added anything on that point. being a wanted felon doesn't necessarily make him guilty. but if this is going to be a truly honest article we can't be afraid to mention the grimy portions of anyone's life along with the brighter spots. I haven't done anything else today but tell the rest of the truth that this article seems to purposefully omit. Scottdude2000 (talk) 20:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

very well KWW, I will wait for some consensus. if I do not hear any posts back I will make the addition again. happy editing.Scottdude2000 (talk) 22:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

There's not enough support in the article for saying Smith was a wanted felon and insurrectionist. He was certainly believed to be in insurrection at times, and appears to have agreed with some of the stuff Rigdon said, but calling him an "insurrectionist" is completely over the top.

You point out that being a "wanted felon" doesn't necessarily make him guilty, but calling him a "wanted felon" with no further explanation is essentially calling him a felon (that is wanted). You'd also have to define felon, since the definition has changed, and "felon" can mean a number of things, including murderer, rapist, arsonist, theif, drug dealer. . . all of which were not the case. Adjwilley (talk) 23:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

If you asked a notable historian, "Who was Joseph Smith?" they would probably not immediately respond with anything like "wanted felon and insurrectionist." Depending on their POV, they might say "liar" or "fraud", but "wanted felon" and "insurrectionist" don't really describe Smith's life in general. ...comments? ~BFizz 01:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

almost every american who's had a basic civ class knows that being wanted doesn't make you guilty. but if this is too harsh hows "suspect in a criminal investigation". thats about as neutral as it gets while still stating the facts. here's whats not acceptable though. completely omitting the facts. and I don't see how agreeing with insurrection doesn't make you an insurrectionist. can someone explain the logic of that one please? Scottdude2000 (talk) 02:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Easy. I agree with the revolution in Libya, but I'm not an insurrectionist or a revolutionary. I agree in some respects with Julian Assange's Wikileaks movement, but I'm not a hacker, whistle-blower, or a "traitor." Agreeing with insurrection doesn't make you an insurrectionist. (As a side note, it's not entirely clear just how much Smith agreed with the insurrection speech.) Also, I think BFizz made a better point then I did, so you should probably address that too. Adjwilley (talk) 03:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

There's a huge difference between "completely omitting the facts" and "not including something in the first paragraph". ...comments? ~BFizz 03:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

but he was a criminal suspect was he not. when did being a criminal suspect on the run from the law become incidental?! I'm fine with going soft on the language. that much is fair. criminal suspect I think is as fair as it gets. but if we're going to mention his polygamy and theocratic beliefs we should also throw bone to the whole wanted by law/run out of town for fear of the noose thing lol. it's not minor... criminal suspect is the fairest way to put this.Scottdude2000 (talk) 06:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

It's true that Smith was accused at various times of a number of felonies including treason, that he was a fugitive for several years from the state of Missouri, and that he was involved in a small war with the Missouri militia. This is all mentioned in the article, including the lead. The list of descriptive labels are supposed to be the descriptions of the broad categories of his primary historical contribution. Smith was not simply an outlaw like Billy the Kid. And he wasn't clearly an insurrectionist in the sense that that he was advocating positive insurrection. I think you misunderstand his comments in Missouri, where he warned that if Mormons were attacked, a Muhammad-like holy war would follow. This is not insurrectionism in any sense of the term that I am aware. COGDEN 11:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

"Criminal suspect" is one of those phrases that really only makes sense in the present tense. The issues have certainly been resolved in the intervening years. "Insurrectionist" seems a bit flamboyant. I can't help but think your goal is to introduce flamboyant language into the lead.—Kww(talk) 12:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

First off: An hour? That's all you waited? An hour? That's a little gung-ho for a volunteer website. I try to contribute as much as the next man but even I have stuff to do. I can't sit and stare at this page all day waiting for someone to make a change. With that in mind I think the points you bring up do need to be in the lead. And if you read the lead you will find, they are. To reduce the complexities of the 1838 War down to "he was an insurrectionist" is simpleton. More than just Smith was involved, more than just insurrection was at stake. The conviction and it's cause are both mentioned in the lead, which gives a much more complete picture than simply stating that he was a "convicted felon". I have a friend that is a "convicted felon" he was peeing off his porch outside when a little girl saw him, poof "convicted felon". "Criminal Suspect" doesn't fit because he wasn't a suspect, he was convicted. Nobody thought he did it, they had decided that he'd done it. I agree that we need to present a complete picture in the lead and, in as much as we need to use more words than we should. But this is just redundant and flamboyant and servs no real purpose. Padillah (talk) 12:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

padilah, there is also a whole lot more to him that "he was a theocrat" or "he was a polygamist"... the lead is intentionally short and meant to bring up the major bullet points. and as far as a contribution to history goes, it seems to me that it's not just about a contribution but one's weight and story within history. what did smith contribute to history by being a polygymist? this isn't so much about contribution to history (although that is a factor) as it is about the major highlights i think. Scottdude2000 (talk) 17:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Then I think there is a question of misidentifying the lead. The entire set of paragraphs that precede the article body are considered the lead, not simply the first sentence. Are you arguing for defects such as those presented to be summarized in the opening paragraph? That is an interesting notion and I suppose it does warrant discussion. What say the public? What are the criteria for mention in the opening paragraph? Is the opening paragraph different than the lead? Should mention in the opening paragraph add weight to a statement? Why, with the possible exception of polygamy, are only meritus associations made in the opening paragraph?

my appologies yes. I'm still getting acclimated to wiki lingo. I meant the first sentence.Scottdude2000 (talk) 18:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Just a clarification about comments above: Joseph Smith was not a convicted felon. He was probably convicted of a misdemeanor "disorderly person" charge in 1826, but the felony state treason charge in Missouri never made it to trial because he escaped, and the felony state treason charge in Illinois never made it to trial because he was killed. COGDEN 18:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

ok thats why I used the term criminal suspect originally since he never actually went on trial but was on the run several times and wanted. clearly this is a point of contention for the regular editors on this article. all this is besides the point though. either he was wanted for the banking fraud or he was felon depending on your perspective. my only point is bare minimum he was wanted on serious charges for which there is considerable evidence backing their validity. therefor, in my opinion, since the leed and the first couple opening lines are basically a quick breeze through the major events about his life and who he is on paper, it should mention that he was wanted (the language choice of this can be played with).Scottdude2000 (talk) 18:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Can we also add the phrase "...and a lot of people didn't like him" at the end? That is also true. Adjwilley (talk) 20:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Id be all for that if I wasn't so afraid of mormons casting a spell on me. haha but seriously listen, I knew this would be a contentious request but there's no need to turn this into a heated discussion. My request differs from your hypothetical because a) it's serious and that would be a silly jab that's far from a neutral and objective examination of the relevant facts and b) this article isn't just about the publics common conception as true as your statement may be. This is about who he was. bright and dark. I knew this would be contentious because some here obviously believe he's all dark. and some believe he's all bright. I think more than anything the facts should win. Scottdude2000 (talk) 00:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The fact is, this just wasn't a big enough part of Smith's life to merit inclusion in the first paragraph. ...comments? ~BFizz 05:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Opening_paragraph for the style guide of what a biographical first paragraph should contain. I don't really see how "convicted felon" or similar, in Smith's case, falls under any of those categories. ...comments? ~BFizz 07:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I feel like being wanted for banking fraud is a big deal. My grandfather was a felon. that note might not be on his epitaph but if I had to sum up the major things he was and did his crimes would come up. see the thing is, by making this about major verses minor portions of time in his life you essentially erode the sentence by ignoring the choices he was known for. He spent his whole youth on a farm but it doesn't say farmer in the first sentance and he spent much more time on that than he did a political theorist or military leader (which btw, if you're going to include the fact that he was a military leader the insurrectionist thing should be reconsidered since it was his military that started an insurrection, or if he wasn't in charge of their actions that is what is called a coup and therefore he wasn't a leader he was an advisor to whoever was in charge). for the article to be truly neutral the first sentance can't just be this ode to joseph smith. it has to cover everything.Scottdude2000 (talk) 22:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

"the choices he was known for" - he was not well known for "banking fraud" nor for being "wanted". When I say "big part of his life", it isn't necessarily large portions of time, but significance. Historians don't seem to make a big deal out of it in Smith's case, as far as I am aware. The third paragraph clearly states that Smith "was imprisoned on capital charges". It's too much of a stretch to push it into the first paragraph. ...comments? ~BFizz 03:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

ok. that I understand and think is a fair point. maybe the military leader language needs work though going back to my earlier point. I have trouble calling the guy a military leader if his military started a war without either his knowledge or permission. if it was something he knew about and ordered then insurrectionist isn't far from the truth. either way don't you think that language needs to be tweaked to either reflect one or both of those scenarios? Scottdude2000 (talk) 05:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Smith led Zion's Camp, and later was the general of the Nauvoo Legion; there seems to be ample evidence that he was a "military leader". While to some degree I suppose it is correct to call him an insurrectionist, I hesitate to use this word in the lede since it is so vague. I think I'm starting to see what you are getting at, though. Smith repeatedly rebelled against the political power over him: he performed "glass looking" (an illegal act), he established the Kirtland Safety Society despite his failure to acquire a banking charter, and he (with others) had the Nauvoo Expositor press destroyed, and established martial law in Nauvoo. I could understand the addition of this general idea to the lede: that Smith disregarded the law when it blocked him from reaching his objectives. ...comments? ~BFizz 03:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

yeah that's basically the gist of this. you're right the word insurrectionist is probably too vague. I'm a noob to this wikiediting thing so what word(s) would you choose that's neutral but objectively truthful fizz? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottdude2000 (talk • contribs) 06:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not really sure. political theorist vaguely alludes to the idea, though perhaps too vaguely to do it justice. Do any other editors have good ideas on this? (As a side note, I think that having both theocrat and political theorist is a bit redundant) ...comments? ~BFizz 20:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

My notion of a theocrat is someone who makes decisions for his subordinates in the name of God, such as having folks move from New York to Ohio, or from Ohio to Missouri, or from Missouri to Illinois. Or it's establishing the United Order of Enoch, or the Kirtland bank, or Zion's Camp on the basis of divine revelation.--John Foxe (talk) 20:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd be happy with the simple term "political leader" for the first sentence, as long as the fact that he tried to establish a theocratic kingdom is mentioned somewhere in the lead. COGDEN 01:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

How would you word that statement, and where do you think it should be added?--John Foxe (talk) 17:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Evidence refutes Brodie, again.

I'm not getting into this discussion, but I thought most would be interested in the article at http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700150651/DNA-solves-a-Joseph-Smith-mystery.html . It provides DNA support for the fact that not only has there been no DNA evidence to connect Joseph Smith to having any children except through Emma, but it actually proves that 4 who have been implied as his offspring to other wives are not his descendants. I see no point in discussing it as I already know where the protectors of this article stand on this one. Juat an FYI.--Canadiandy talk 17:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Not sure where you're going with that. We already say that "As of 2011, DNA testing had provided no evidence that Smith had fathered any children by women other than Emma." Are you suggesting a change of wording to reflect that 4 "offspring" claims were refuted? ...comments? ~BFizz 19:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure. My real point stems from the tone of the article that Joseph Smith was a polygamist in the traditional sense. The term 'dynastic' has been dismissed by some, but I think this suggests at least a qualifier when identifying that he was "a polygamist." The test of time continues to reveal Joseph Smith is far from the person his critics (some actively editing here)have painted him to be. But I'm not going to be taking on this one. Thanks for your interest though, BFizz.--Canadiandy talk 22:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Am I missing a definition? Polygamy is about being married to more than one person, not the number of offspring you've fathered. How do the offspring figure into this? Padillah (talk) 13:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The article does not work

I can not access the Joseph Smith article, it does not work.79.209.37.150 (talk) 12:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Several admins are aware of the redirect problem caused by the move. Padillah (talk) 13:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I've done a partial restore back to 6 July pending a further fix, a developer may be needed. The remaining history can still be seen by admins but the software returns a server error when one tries to undelete the whole history. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the help. Where would we find a developer to get further help? Padillah (talk) 17:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest asking at WP:VPT. I'm guessing it is too large of a rev-undelete to be handled through the web. Please post here with a link to where you ask- for instance, was the "several admins" comment above on a user talk page or ANI? tedder (talk) 17:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

That's what I'd think, WP:VPT. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. The "several Admins" above was individual admin pages (specifically Gwen Gale and Bwilkins ). I know this article can get pretty busy at times and I didn't want swarms of editors getting swarms of admins to make swarms of corrections. That would only exacerbate the issue. Thanks for the advice on leaving a link, that would help others keep track of what is being asked and where. Good point. I will check out WP:VPT and see what I find. I will report back in any case. Padillah (talk) 19:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok. I posted a request for help getting the page history back. Let's see what happens. Thanks everyone for the input and guidance. Padillah (talk) 20:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks,Padillah.--John Foxe (talk) 21:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Joseph Smith's Last Dream

The following text is taken from an 1863 Salt Lake City Almanac published by W. W. Phelps Digital photographs of the actual pages can be seen below. Look at Joseph Smith's Last Dream - The Full Account as Told by W. W. Phelps How can I add this dream to this wikipedia biography?79.209.69.49 (talk) 09:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

First, it would be important to explain the relevance of someone's twenty-year-old remembrance of someone else's dream to an encyclopedia article, especially since Richard Bushman's 700-page biography of Joseph Smith doesn't mention it.--John Foxe (talk) 14:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

This last dream shows the death of Joseph Smith in a new light! That is the relevance of this dream.79.209.69.49 (talk) 15:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Let me suggest you first discuss this second-hand account of a dream at the Death of Joseph Smith article. If Bushman doesn't mention it in a 700-page book, it's going to be way too specific for this general article.--John Foxe (talk) 16:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Ditto what Foxe said. ...comments? ~BFizz 17:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Raised by a poor family?

The article states that Joseph was "...reared in western New York by a poor family...". It doesn't bother me one wit whether this is identified (better than his being raised in wealth says I). My pondering is what we mean by poor. For example, if everyone in his community was financially struggling, but while they may have been borrowing money from family they had sufficient for their needs, historical context would suggest they were actually well off. So, what is the source, and does their poverty have proper context for the time and place. I'm not looking for a change. I do believe the Smith family were struggling. I just wonder if is historically and contextually accurate. Either a little more detail or the term seems too vague. Yes, I know I've acted unwisely in the past here so I promise to just bring this up and let it go.

Summary: poor compared to what baseline?--Canadiandy talk 08:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Bushman covers the family's financial situation around the time of Joseph's birth on pp 18–20 of Rough Stone Rolling. Prior to the incident in which Joseph Sr. got ripped off in the crystallized ginseng deal (early 1800s), the Smiths were essentially "middle class"—they owned a farm, ran a store, had cash savings, etc. Bushman says the ginseng deal that went awry "was a fateful turning point in the Smith family fortunes". They had to sell the farm and use their savings to avoid debt. It's at that point that Lucy Smith starts saying the family knew the "embarrassment of poverty". Bushman says "they crossed the boundary dividing independent ownership from tenancy and day labor". Essentially, they became lower class. Bushman notes that because of family help, "though poor, Joseph and Lucy would not starve or be shorthanded when they needed help."

So I believe the classification of the Smith family as "poor" at this time can be justified both by the Smiths' self-identification—Lucy says they were in poverty—and by Bushman's modern characterization of their financial state. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Lead and narrow perspective

The opening paragraph states: "Regarded as a prophet by his followers, Smith was also a theocrat, city planner, military leader, political theorist, and polygamist." Then it proceeds to only list controversial issues. It does not address his city planning, military organizing and leadership (except to say they lost the war - without any clarification as to why), no political theorizing nothing. Instead a tawdry list of the most loved topics of critics. Nothing that addresses anything positive about the man Smith. Is this how all articles are written on Wikipedia? Could someone provide one similar example? I have been away for a while and this article has turned into a hack job that does nothing to address the man and everything to address the interests of those benevolent anti-Mormons that are so interested in Mr. Smith. -^StormRider 12:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

"Smith led his followers to settle at Nauvoo, Illinois" - this is one part of the lede that could expound on the "city planner" part, explaining how Smith caused the construction of the (at the time) largest city in Illinois from scratch. What other positives do you find lacking? Which points of the lede do you find excessively negative? ...comments? ~BFizz 13:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I guess it depends on one's subjective sense of what it "positive". I find the information in the lead about Smith's founding of a church "positive", in the sense that founding a religion is generally seen as something not any old person can pull off, and new religions that are founded generally have positive effects on many people's lives. The bestowal of the golden plates and the publication of new scripture is extremely "positive" if accepted at face value—it's certainly something that Mormons strive to spread word of throughout the world. The mention that his teachings constitute scripture by many is pretty impressive and therefore "positive". The accounts of him and his people being threatened with "extermination" can certainly elicit sympathy, and therefore bestow an aura of a persecuted believer, which many would find "positive". On many points, whether one interprets some things in the lead as "positive" or "negative" might tell us more about the reader and his pre-conceived notions about Smith, which I think is a generally good sign of a NPOV. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I want us to get away from thinking in terms of "positive" vs. "negative," and instead focus our thinking in terms of "notable" vs. "obscure." Whatever one person thinks is a negative, someone else will think it is positive. Take polygamy, for example. If you are a fundamentalist Mormon, or a 19th century Mormon, that was a positive. If you are a mystic, reference to Smith's career in magic is a positive. Yes, his failed military expedition, imprisonment in Missouri, and assassination are not good things to have happened to Smith by any measure, but such was his life, and you can't ignore these very notable events. You don't have to find some obscure "good" thing to balance every notable "bad" thing. Nevertheless, there are plenty of notable "good" things in the intro, such as the golden plates, Book of Mormon, organizing a church, building Zion, building a temple, escaping from prison, building Nauvoo, running for president, his teachings, and having a legacy of 14 million followers. COGDEN 03:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I would assume that the main thing people find distasteful is the sentence in the 2nd paragraph that reads: "During the early 1820s, Smith himself was paid to search for buried treasure with a seer stone." It seems to get deleted every other day. I think there are a few problems with the sentence, and the paragraph as a whole, but to explain them will take a little background. I will start with a brief overview of the lead as it stands now, summarizing the main topics of each paragraph.

• Paragraph 1: Establish (briefly) why Smith was notable: Founder, prophet, theocrat, etc.
• Paragraph 2: History: Born to poor religious family, looked for treasure, golden plates, Book of Mormon, organize church.
• Paragraph 3: History: 1831-1838 - Kirtland, KSS, Zions Camp, Missouri, Mormon war.
• Paragraph 4: History: 1839-1844 - Establish Nauvoo, Run for President, Expositer, and murder.
• Paragraph 5: Legacy: Scripture, unique views, and religious denominations.

Some notable omissions (in my view) are: his theophany, his "revelations", the fact that he claimed to be restoring the primitive church, and his religious background.

Now let me address some specific problems I see.

1. Three paragraphs are devoted to history, three sentences are devoted to legacy.
2. Smith is most notable for being a religious leader, yet over half the lead seems to focus on apparently non-religious activities such as founding cities, banks, armies, and getting in and out of jail. (primarily in paragraphs 3, 4 - the two longest)
3. The treasure sentence disrupts the flow in paragraph 2. It sticks out. It has no tie to the previous sentence, and depending on your point of view, no tie to the following sentence either. The reader can tell it was spliced in after the paragraph was written.
4. Paragraph 2 has no unifying theme, while the others do. (Granted, paragraphs 3 and 4 jump around a bit, but are pretty logical divisions in time.) Paragraph 2 simply tries to cram in too much.
5. The "himself" doesn't really work in the "treasure" sentence.

My specific recommendation

Split paragraph 2 in half. Let the first paragraph focus on the birth, upbringing, family, and religious background. "Religious enthusiasm" is an understatement. Folk religion and folk magic should probably be mentioned. Treasure hunting can be mentioned too, as long as we find a way to tie it in. (One possible way could be through the folk magic. Another could be through the family losing the farm and the hired hand angle. Both would probably be best.) A mention of the first vision would also be appropriate. Then let the second paragraph be on the golden plates, Book of Mormon, and founding a church. This would probably be the "religious" paragraph that is somewhat missing now. Mention the "restoration" aspect, and possibly the revelations and other "visitations" (This could be done in a single sentence). I also recommend expanding the last paragraph slightly with more specifics.

A final note on the treasure hunting with the seer stone: I personally don't think it was one of the more notable achievements of his life. He was never very good at it, and seems to have been pressured into the business anyway. However there seems to be a strong push to keep it, so if we do, we need to make it tie in, and give it the proper context. Second final note: I agree with COgden's comment above, which I didn't read until I had finished writing this. I do think there are some notable things left out of the lead. -- Adjwilley (talk) 04:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. I think the two comments above—by Cogden and Adjwilley—are both quite thoughtful. I could go along with Adjwilley's approach here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Adwilley's suggestions sound reasonable, though for the intro, the devil is always in the details. One problematic thing to do correctly is inclusion of Smith's first vision, given that the meaning and importance of the vision evolved during Smith's lifetime and after his death. While he was alive, the first vision was never more prominent than the visions of Moroni, the vision of the three degrees of glory, or the vision of Elijah, only the first of which is currently mentioned in the intro. The vision is mainly of religious, rather than historical, importance, and may belong in the teachings/legacy paragraph. The vision has the unusual characteristic that discussing it chronologically is a bit of an anachronism, because it implies historical significance that didn't develop until decades later. COGDEN 08:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Cogden's advice up above on getting away from positive and negative is wise indeed and I agree with it. Focusing on what is notable is desired, but one therein may also lie the rub. What is notable to one is not to another. We do not address the many verifiable examples of Smith functioning as a religious person/prophet. There are many situations where he was an instrument of curing people of their maladies, but this is absent from the article. The city of Nauvoo as a city planner to me is not as important as Smith's ability to draw so many people to him in order to make one of the larger cities in the area in that time period. Smith's use of peep stones is of interest to some, but I find it almost of no interest; however, I do think it should be in the article, but not the introduction. Smith was visionary in a literal sense - his revelations and theophanies never stopped.

His first vision may not have been of much focus during his early life, but his legacy can in many ways be focused almost entirely on this event being the stepping stone to forming his life thereafter. I am not sure the notable relates to chronological events has any value; notable is what is most remembered, what is most important about the life of an individual.

I had to laugh when I read the Mormons lost the Mormon War of 1838. This was not a war of the Mormons' choosing. It was a war of the surrounding community against them because they were growing too fast for their comfort. This was not was "war" is the true sense of the word, but a consistent, common reflection of the society rejecting the growth of a new peole in an area; particularly one that favored slavery being overrun by an upstart religion that was against slavery. -^StormRider 10:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

As a never-been-a-Mormon, I find Smith's failed attempts to find buried gold through supernatural means highly significant because they occurred before (and after) he claimed to have found the golden plates. His many failed prophecies and repeated failures to heal his followers from illness are of more significance than his few successes. The First Vision is worthy of mention only as a fraud, concocted to help Smith out of a leadership crisis. I could go on. My point is, as Storm has said above, that significance is in the eye of the beholder. That being the case, this article should give additional weight to the majority, non-believing view of Smith's career.--John Foxe (talk) 14:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

There is a difference between passive non-belief and active disbelief. Treasure-seeking is important to the active disbelief view, in which it is seen as evidence of fraud. However, it is not important to a passive non-belief view, because it was both common to the era, and a minor part of Smith's life in general. Foxe's reasoning about the relevance of the First Vision also clearly and legitimately pertains to an active disbelief view. I'm not so sure that active disbelief is the majority view, as opposed to passive non-belief. I do think it fair to say that the general tone of this article should be respectful, observational, passive non-belief. ...comments? ~BFizz 17:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how we'd measure active versus passive disbelief, by which I think you mean ignorance. But I'm sure if you asked non-Mormons who knew little of Joseph Smith whether his treasure hunting for gold by supernatural means before finding the golden plates by supernatural means was important, a majority would say that it was. Furthermore, I don't believe treasure hunting was all that common in his time and place (pace Bushman and most Mormons). Most clergymen of the era considered it the work of the devil. Nor was treasure hunting a minor part of Smith's life; it's how he made a living as a young man.

I'm all for the "observational" so long Smith's life is recounted in such a way to allow passive unbelievers to become more knowledgeable.--John Foxe (talk) 18:52, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Before this degrades into a "Mormon vs. non-Mormon" tirade I think we must keep in mind the header at the top of the page: this is a controversial article and discussion may escalate. Let's keep cool heads and at least pretend to try and remain neutral.

That being said, I agree the lead could be written better but I have serious misgivings about rewriting it due to the effort put into establishing what is there in the first place. As slip-shod as it may look that is actually the work of several weeks of working together and coming to compromise. We have both points of view represented here, there's no reason we can't include what is important to each point of view. I don't see a real reason to include the "passive non-belief" point of view because that's really non-existent. Few people who don't care about Joseph Smith care what is said about Joseph Smith. So, that leaves us with belief and disbelief. Let's see what a sample of Adjwilley's new first paragraph would look like and go from there. Padillah (talk) 20:25, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The header did take a long time to negotiate in months past. One regret of mine is that I couldn't roust support to footnote it. (I realize footnoting headers is unusual at Wikipedia.) In my opinion, good references make good neighbors.--John Foxe (talk) 21:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I realize that a massive amount of effort that has gone into writing the lead, and that many sentences have been shaped by pages of discussion and arguments. I'll admit that I feel under-qualified to be doing this, and am frankly surprised that I am.

Nonetheless, I am working on a rough draft with the proposed changes, but I would ask that you give me one more day before I present it here. It is in a fairly rough stage, and I don't want to present it and spark controversy over details that I should have smoothed out myself. I will try my best to treat each word and sentence with respect, and I hope to avoid changes that could be considered radical. -- Adjwilley (talk) 21:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Take all the time you need. That you are doing it at all makes you a better man than I am. Or, at least, a better copyeditor. Padillah (talk) 11:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Lead (first draft)

Thank you for the extra time. The following is a first draft reflecting the changes I am proposing. For those interested, the difference between this and the current lead can be seen here. I have also made a list of the specific changes below, where I would appreciate comments on the individual changes.

Joseph Smith, Jr. (December 23, 1805 – June 27, 1844) was an American religious leader and the founder of the Latter Day Saint movement. Regarded as a prophet by his followers, Smith was also a theocrat, city planner, military leader, political theorist, and polygamist.

Smith was born in Sharon, Vermont, the fifth child of Joseph Smith, Sr. and Lucy Mack Smith. Early in his childhood, his family moved to western New York because of crop failures and some ill-fated business ventures. Like many families at the time, Smith's family was influenced by the religious enthusiasm of the Second Great Awakening, but had little affiliation with organized religion; however, they were privately religious, accepting of things like visions and prophecies, and they practiced various kinds of folk religion. In fact, Smith himself was paid to search for buried treasure with a seer stone.

Beginning in the 1820s, Smith was said to have had a series of visions. He claimed that in 1823 an angel directed him to a buried book of golden plates inscribed with a religious history of ancient American peoples. After publishing an English translation of the plates as the Book of Mormon, he organized branches of the Church of Christ, saying that he had been chosen by God to restore the early Christian faith. Church members were later called Latter Day Saints, Saints, or Mormons.

In 1831, Smith moved west to Kirtland, Ohio intending to establish a utopian city called Zion in western Missouri, but Missouri settlers expelled the Saints in 1833. After leading Zion's Camp, an unsuccessful expedition to recover the land, Smith began building a temple in Kirtland. In 1837, a bank established by Smith and other church leaders, suffered a major financial crisis, and the following year Smith joined his followers in northern Missouri. The 1838 Mormon War ensued with Missourians who felt threatened by the rapid growth of Mormon communities. When the Saints lost the war, they were expelled, and Smith was imprisoned on capital charges.

After being allowed to escape state custody in 1839, Smith led his followers to settle at Nauvoo, Illinois on Mississippi River swampland, and there he served as both mayor and commander of its large militia, the Nauvoo Legion. In early 1844, he announced his candidacy for President of the United States. That summer, after the Nauvoo Expositor criticized Smith's practice of polgyamy, the Nauvoo City Council ordered the paper's destruction. During the ensuing turmoil, Smith first declared martial law and then surrendered to the governor of Illinois. Although the governor promised his safety, Smith was murdered while awaiting trial in Carthage, Illinois.

Smith's followers regard many of his publications as scripture. His teachings include unique views about the nature of God, cosmology, family structures, political organization, and religious collectivism. He is seen as one of the most charismatic and inventive figures of American history, and his followers regard him as a prophet of at least the stature of Moses and Elijah. Smith's legacy includes a number of religious denominations, including the Utah based Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Missouri based Community of Christ which collectively claim a growing membership of over 14 million worldwide.

Specific changes made

1. Added names of parents.
2. Added 5th child detail.
3. Added reason they moved from Vermont (crop failures, bad business ventures).
4. "poor family" was removed, however the "poor" is still implied by the crop failures, business ventures, and fifth child. This change was an unintended side-effect of adding the parents names. I realize this was being debated on the talk page, but that was not the reason I dropped it.
5. Added folk religion, private practice of religion, and acceptance of visions (this support from the family could have been formative for Smith).
6. Split 2nd paragraph.
7. Added "series of visions" to second paragraph (indirect reference to 1st vision).
8. Added restoration (link to Christian primitivism) and Early Christianity to end of 2nd paragraph.
9. Last paragraph: added sentence about being seen as charismatic and inventive (sourced in article, and generally agreed upon).
10. Added that his followers view him as prophet on the level as Moses and Elijah. (Slightly redundant from 1st paragraph, but appropriate I think, since that is what he is most notable for.)
11. Added link to Mormon cosmology.
12. Mentioned by name the two largest denominations in his legacy (LDS and CoC). I was going for specifics in the goals, and these seemed like a specific that was lacking. I don't know if there has been discussion over these in the past, so if they end up being a source of contention, I'm fine with taking them back out. It should be noted that Community of Christ is linked twice in the article (once in Religious denominations, once in Family and descendants - both at the very end of the article) and the LDS Church is linked once in Religious denominations. Seeing that Joseph Smith is of high importance to both movements, and that they represent the two largest surviving bodies from the succession crisis, I see no problem with linking them in the Lead.
13. Removed the last reference that sourced the LDS and CoC numbers. It's fairly non-controversial, and the 13,824,854 LDS statistic was outdated anyway. (They passed 14 million in 2010.)
14. Changed "intending to establish the city of Zion" to "intending to establish a utopian city called Zion." I think the clarification helpful.
15. Changed "Kirtland Safety Society" to "a bank" (It's more concise)
16. Changed "Missourians who believed Smith had incited insurrection" to "Missourians who felt threatened by the rapid growth of Mormon communities" As far as I understand, the Missourians were alarmed by the rapid growth of Mormon communities, and Mormons were seen as a religious, economic, and political threat (leaders were afraid the Mormons would vote in blocs, Mormons proselyted to the Indians, and openly discussed how they would inherit the land). The "insurrection" scare started after the Battle of Crooked River in 1838, and was more the last straw than the root cause.
17. Removed "paramilitary", a change inspired by Trodel's recent edit. I think paramilitary is a borderline Weasel word. The term is subjective, depending on what is considered similar to a military force, and what status a force is considered to have. By the way, Bushman's comment on the military-ness of Zions camp says, "Zions Camp did attempt a mild military order, but Joseph was short on military discipline. The company, which included women and children, averaged about 25 miles per day. The men were organized into companies of 12 with a captain over each, but their duties were to cook, make fires, prepare tents, fetch water, and attend to horses, more like trail companies than a military troop."

Note: The last 4 changes were not discussed or proposed on the Talk page. I just made them spontaneously. If there are problems with these changes, I am ok with leaving them out, and bringing them up later. Also, not all of the new wording is mine. I copied and pasted much of it directly from other Wikipedia articles. I say this only because I'd like to avoid taking credit for work that was not my own.

At this point, the lead is just a draft, and what I would like to happen is for all interested parties to concisely state their agreement or disagreement with the specific changes. For example:

• I agree with all of the changes, except numbers 11 and 17. -- Adjwilley (talk)
• I think 3 needs some discussion, 7 is worded poorly, 2 is too much detail, and 16 is unsupported by the sources. -- Adjwilley (talk)
• I think 10 is improper POV insertion. -- Adjwilley (talk)
• I think these are all bad, and we should scrap the whole thing. -- Adjwilley (talk)

Again, this is a first draft, and I expect some of the proposed changes to be vetoed immediately. So let's avoid in-depth discussions and partisan bickering at this point, and see where that gets us.

Comments

• I agree with all the changes, to varying degrees. However I would like a second opinion on 16 from somebody who knows the sources. -- Adjwilley (talk) 21:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
• I think Adjwilley has done a good job with this draft. My main complaints regard style and length. For instance, I don't see why the lead has to give a reason for the Smith family's move from Vermont. Upstate New York was populated with folks from New England trying to better their condition. All we need say is that "By 1817, the Smith family had moved to Upstate New York." Likewise, about the Smith family religion, we can just say that the "Smith family held conflicted views about organized religion but accepted the legitimacy of visions and prophecies and engaged in folk religious practices common to their era." Everything being equal, shorter is better, especially in the lead.--John Foxe (talk) 10:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
• I agree with most edits here. Just a few nitpicks related to WP:EGG: I disagree with #15; it's better to spell out the thing being linked to in most cases. In the same vein, it would be better to link the whole phrase "Smith was murdered" rather than just the word "murdered" to make it more apparent where that link is going (although this is an existing issue in the current article, not introduced by your edits). I think we should consider StormRider's additions as well, specifically, "recover the land stolen from church members" and "they were expelled by threat of extermination", which cast a little more light on these relatively dire situations. ...comments? ~BFizz 18:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC)