Jump to content

Talk:Joseph Smith

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 129.82.88.48 (talk) at 04:15, 14 June 2010 (→Supernatural Force?: sure...just trust JS). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former featured article candidateJoseph Smith is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 11, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
December 14, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 3, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Former featured article candidate

Template:Archive box collapsible

Toolbox

"Smith strongly favored U.S. constitutional rights"

Finetooth noted that we don't have a source for the paragraph in the Teachings section that starts with "Smith strongly favored U.S. constitutional rights". COgden, have you got anything for this? ...comments? ~BFizz 05:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some citations from Bushman—probably not the best source for this topic but good enough to silence potential critics.--John Foxe (talk) 11:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. ...comments? ~BFizz 22:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alt text

I've gone through and given all of the images alt text (prompted by Finetooth's suggestion). Review the diffs at your leisure and make sure they conform with your understanding of WP:ALT. Thanks. ...comments? ~BFizz 22:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. A good reminder of how precious eyesight is.--John Foxe (talk) 11:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

POV Article

I started an exercise to find out about the neutrality of this article, or lack thereof. I went through about the first 74 references and notes. In my reckoning, there were 17 positive statements referenced or noted, 30 neutral, and 27 negative ones. This is evidence to me that the article, particularly the part I went through, is not NPOV. I read a lot more than that, and what I read has a negative tone. There are plenty of people, like me, that believe that Joseph Smith was a man of good character and a prophet of God. That is not adequately represented in contrast to the people who believe he was a fraud and not a good man. I wish people would not publish lies and focus on the negative aspects of Joseph Smith's life to put him in a bad light. --96.31.118.209 (talk) 04:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since Wikipedia is supposed to reflect the balance of what reliable sources say about a particular subject, and since in this case (as generally with religious subjects) the sources themselves lean more skeptical/critical than apologetic, those numbers don't sound particularly unreasonable to me. I'm not saying there are no POV problems, but the overall picture you paint doesn't greatly alarm me (and I am LDS, for what it's worth). But I do compliment you on the effort and care spent in evaluating so many references; that's a lot of work to do and it's good for articles to have their references checked out once in a while. alanyst /talk/ 05:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto what analyst said. I disagree with your conclusion, which is based on fuzzy logic, but reviewing the references is definitely a good thing. If you have any specific suggestions for how to make the article more neutral, they are always welcome. In any event, I'm about to nominate this for Good Article Review. Hopefully this process will get more eyeballs on the article to address the neutrality issue. ...comments? ~BFizz 22:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Preparing for WP:GAN

I'm going to put this article up at WP:Good article nominations tomorrow, if no one has any objections. I invite you to wrap up any major tweaking by that time. If there is a significant chunk of work you would like to do before the nomination, just let me know and we can postpone the nomination a few days. ...comments? ~BFizz 22:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The many citations put in the middle of sentences instead of the end make the text cluttered and difficult to read. Hekerui (talk) 06:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing with the readability issue, but WP:Citing sources#How to present citations suggests "placing [citations] in a footnote, with a link following the assertion (whether a clause, sentence, paragraph, etc.) that supports it." One benefit of this is that you know exactly what proposition is being supported, whereas if all citations are held until the end of the sentence and then combined into a single footnote, there might be some ambiguity. COGDEN 16:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning up unused references

There are a number of references that are never actually cited in the article. I think we should delete these. For example, we never cite Andrus (1973), Bennett (1842), Berge (1985), etc. In some cases, a reference is cited only once, like Booth (1831). In such cases, I think we might want to consider moving the citation to the single footnote where they are referenced. My view is that the "References" section should contain only sources that are cited multiple times in the article. We also ought to make sure everything we cite in the footnotes is either cited in full in the footnote or included in the "References" section. COGDEN 00:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with removing unused references, though perhaps we should keep them around on the talk page somewhere, or consider finding suitable citations from them. I'm not sure where I stand on the "references" section only having sources that are cited multiple times; I'm not sold on the idea, but I don't oppose it. General reference clean-up is definitely something that should be done. ...comments? ~BFizz 02:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If we want to consistently list all cited references in the "References" section, including one-off citations, I'd be okay with that too, as long as it's done consistently. Most of the orphan references are primary sources that were used in a prior version, but were replaced with broader statements from secondary sources such as Bushman and Brodie. The primary sources can still be cited in the more detailed sub-articles. I maintain a list of Mormon studies citations for use in various articles, which includes all of these references, so if down the road we want to add them back or add them to sub-articles, we could just draw from that list so we don't have to re-do the work. Or if there is a particular source that is not cited but should be, we could discuss it here now. COGDEN 19:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed a number of references that are not cited in the text. They are listed below:
COGDEN 22:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your excellent work, COgden. ...comments? ~BFizz 22:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bravo. I would not have guessed there were so many.--John Foxe (talk) 00:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good article criteria - summary style

Criteria 3 (b) of the Good article criteria is: "it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)." Is there a general article about Joseph Smith, Jr that the general reader could read that does not have so much detail as this one does? Regards, Xtzou (Talk) 19:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is Wikipedia's most general article about Joseph Smith. I think the key word in "unnecessary detail" is unnecessary. The "prose size" of this article is presently 46 kB, which is on the longer side of featured articles, but not unheard of. (See WP:SIZERULE.) Smith's life happens to have been be a lot fuller, more controversial, and better documented and commented about at all periods, than most public figures. There's really not a lot of fluff here. But I and others have been trying for several months to prune, simplify, and generalize the article as much as possible, but I think we're now pretty close to being about as minimal an article as possible that still covers Smith comprehensively. I'm sure there are still areas we can streamline, however, but getting to 40 kB would probably require the amputation of some of the article's major limbs and organs. If you have any thoughts or suggestions for further streamlining, I'd be interested in your perspective. COGDEN 00:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article has way too much detail for a GA. There should not be a need for 425 footnotes, many of them going into excruciating detail about obscure issues that the general reader cannot understand, and will not be interested in. If they are interested, they can read the daughter articles to get the details. This is my opinion. Xtzou (Talk) 12:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reminded of Amadeus:
EMPEROR: Well, I mean occasionally it seems to have, how shall one say? [he stops in difficulty; turning to Orsini-Rosenberg] How shall one say, Director?
ORSINI-ROSENBERG: Too many notes, Your Majesty?
EMPEROR: Exactly. Very well put. Too many notes.
MOZART: I don't understand. There are just as many notes, Majesty, as are required. Neither more nor less.
EMPEROR: My dear fellow, there are in fact only so many notes the ear can hear in the course of an evening. I think I'm right in saying that, aren't I, Court Composer?
SALIERI: Yes! yes! er, on the whole, yes, Majesty.
MOZART: But this is absurd!
EMPEROR: My dear, young man, don't take it too hard. Your work is ingenious. It's quality work. And there are simply too many notes, that's all. Cut a few and it will be perfect.
MOZART: Which few did you have in mind, Majesty?
EMPEROR: Well. There it is.
John Foxe (talk) 17:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the point of a summary article if it is not to surmount this type of over detailed presentation that makes the article inaccessible to the general reader. I cannot even get through the lead, except by ignoring all the wikilinks and footnotes. Xtzou (Talk) 18:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's only one footnote in the lead—much fought over, I should add. Why don't you try to eliminate some links and see if anyone has a problem with that? I certainly wouldn't.--John Foxe (talk) 23:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did eliminate a bunch to common words, per WP:Overlinking, but most of the links in the lead are Easter egg links that lead to a specifically Mormon topic. Should I eliminate those? Like the ones for a pair, golden plates, seer stones and angel, for example (to take some from the first para)? All the remaining links are like that. Xtzou (Talk) 23:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a fan of Easter egg links, so most of those must be COGDEN's. Let's see what he thinks. My own feeling is that if those words are linked in the body of the article, there's no reason for them to be linked in the lead.--John Foxe (talk) 23:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what an Easter egg link is. If it means a piped link, then I don't think there's any guideline disfavoring them. If there is, I'd like to know. In general, I favor links whenever (1) the reader may not naturally know what the term means, or (2) when the link would direct the reader to further information in the same context of the article. I agree there are probably too many links, mostly because of redundancy. I wouldn't, however, want to eliminate a link to a relevant article containing information that might help the reader understand the context. For example, golden plates, seer stone (Latter Day Saints), Urim and Thummim (Latter Day Saints), etc.
As to too many footnotes, I don't see that as a problem. The average reader ignores the footnotes, as they should. Footnotes and citations are only for the advanced or academic reader that want to check the sources, and there is no such thing as over-citation. Same with any other material in the footnotes. COGDEN 01:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Policy: WP:EGG. Piped links can be sketchy at times, I try to avoid them usually, though they certainly have their place. Typically, if it doesn't link to the word in blue (like angel), then I try to include the article (e.g. an angel) to make the target more apparent, though admittedly not explicit. I am personally a wikilink-lover; I will cram them in all over the place if you don't hold me back. So if you expect someone to reduce the link density, pick any of the other wonderful wikipedians to do the job. ;) ...comments? ~BFizz 07:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out. I will support any improvements in conformance with the spirit of the guideline. COGDEN 03:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a few changes to the wikilinks in the lede to make them more closely conform to WP policy as I understand it (and to my own preference). Does anyone oppose to saying in the lede "he founded the Church of Christ" as opposed to "he founded a church"? ...comments? ~BFizz 05:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Looks good to me.
It's no big deal, but I'm not sure why "Church of Christ" has to be in the lede. Those unfamiliar with LDS history will be baffled. It might even encourage the unaware to correct the "error." If it were my call, I'd go with the unlinked word "church."--John Foxe (talk) 13:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The important point for the intro is that he founded a church. Its (now obsolete) name is the type of more detailed information that can appear in the main body. COGDEN 17:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Especially since the church name and church successors is a large topic of debate, best to just say "a church" and leave the details to the article proper. tedder (talk) 17:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article does not deserve to be a GA

Why?

  • 1) Too much synthesis and self created conclusions from combining sources by the editors
  • 2) Contains mass OR
  • 3) Heavy POV pushing tone/prose
  • 4) Very selective and biased with negative detail excessive and positive detail excluded or relegated to footnotes.

For a careful and detailed analysis on this, see here: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]

There are, numerous problems with this page. This should never ever be a GA and its an absolute insult that someone had the idea to even think of nominating it. What an embarassment to wikipedia. Routerone (talk) 10:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The criticism of the Foundation for Apologetic Information & Research is now hopelessly out of date, Routerone. Perhaps as a Mormon you might put in a good word and get someone there to more accurately reflect the article as it's evolved during the last six months—a lot of Wiki-time for an article as volatile as this one.--John Foxe (talk) 18:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps if you bothered to look at the links it would help, they updated it accordancee with the article in May. Routerone (talk) 20:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, that was May 2009. The last update was January.--John Foxe (talk) 22:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thats still close enough, and regardless most of the "facts" in question which are tarring the article, haven't changed since then, maybe the wording, but same problems haven't been removed. I am 100% certain their point still stands. Routerone (talk) 22:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at some of their specific examples. I've fixed a lot of the problem wording myself. I'd actually prefer FAIR's critique be up to date because I've referred several folks to it to demonstrate how accurate the article is. That may sound odd to you, but to non-Mormons the FAIR complaints appear non-essential, even trivial. Like Balaam, FAIR's intent was to curse but they've ended up blessing instead.--John Foxe (talk) 22:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, there are many reasons why I don't think it's good practice to be discussing the merits of Good Article status on a non-Wikimedia Foundation website, particularly one that is not open to the public. If the FAIR people have issues, they should bring them here, and they should be up to date. COGDEN 01:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's an old wiki-saying to address your concerns, Routerone. SOFIXIT. Specific examples of what you feel is wrong are always welcome. FAIR brought up specific examples, and many have been addressed. ...comments? ~BFizz 07:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the topic creator, this article is not close to being correct by any stretch of the imagination. It uses invalid references who used invalid references who used invalid references, etc. It's a mutual anti-mormon agreement society at work with the posted references. They all quote each other and also quote illegitimate "witnesses" who were actually just died in the wool Joseph Smith or Mormon haters. These include excommunicated Mormons (unrepentant sinners) who obviously would have gotten angry at the prophet for getting removed from the Church. What an obvious bias these people would have against Mormons and especially against Joseph Smith, Jr., and now they are believable sources??? How can historical truth be derived from such sources? It can't. That's why this article stinks, it is totally unbelievable. If you want to look up sources on the subject that meet the highest standards of world scholarly research refer to "The Joseph Smith Papers." It is a relatively new project that is coming out in annual installments that will eventually comprise 30 volumes. In it are photo copies of the original personal journal entries, correspondance, discourses and written histories, and legal and business documents of Joseph Smith written in his own hand and by the hands of those working alongside him. It beats the current references to published rumors.--steve200255 (talk) 21:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1826 conviction for fraud in Bainbridge NY missing?

Don't know if this has been discussed before as I am new to the article. On a quick read I failed to see it mentioned in the article, or in the Talk archives. Smith was convicted in Bainbridge in 1826, (also referenced in the book No Man Knows by History by Fawn M. Brodie)

STATE OF NEW YORK v. JOSEPH SMITH. Warrant issued upon written complaint upon oath of Peter G. Bridgeman, who informed that one Joseph Smith of Bainbridge was a disorderly person and an imposter. Prisoner brought before Court March 20, 1826...

Shouldn't this be mentioned? Or am I missing something? -- Alexf(talk) 20:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See the more detailed Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr. article. Alanraywiki (talk) 23:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this 1826 trial is already mentioned in the article, in the "early years" section. COGDEN 03:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some Minor adjustments

I've just made, [9]. Please ignore the other two edits prior to that, they were in error and I reverted in such.

Firstly, I removed the part about Oliver Cowdery's profession, because as stated above in the GA points we do have the problem of excessive detail. Stating he was a "teacher and a dowser" in my opinion, exists simply as a piece of irrelevant spin to tune in the article in and emphasise opinion + doubt about his character and Joseph Smith's claims. We dont need nor want this type of thing in the article, so I removed it. Because all that should be stated is "Joseph Smith met Oliver Cowdery and began re-translating". That is th established fact, and adding anything on to that is simply spinning it to generate an impression.

Secondly, I got shot of this. "to ensure that the lost pages could not later be found and compared to the re-translation.". If anything, that again is excessive detail. But my most critical point is, it's synthesis and at worst original research. How? as the fact is stated, and then whoever wrote this seems to have added it in as a self drawn opinion and conclusion from the information stated source. There is no direct evidence to the statement I removed here other than individualistic judgement rendered by self opinion and viewpoint. Hence, the fact is stated on the opinion via a viewpoint, it is incompatible with the article. If this is to be a GA (and I will not oppose the cause on bitterness, which I made the mistake of above; rather I'd be more willing to work on it as long as the article merits it), this kind of unnecessary self drawn commentary ought to be avoided, and believe me the article is rife with it. Routerone (talk) 16:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate the edits, I must say I don't appreciate the lack of AGF you are showing. I've seen more than my share of simple statements get condensed into OR statements like above. And the English language has such nuances that a simple 'a' in the right place (or wrong place as the case may be) can drastically change the meaning of a sentence. Taken together heavily edited articles can get out of hand without any single editor "pushing" anything. Please give others the benefit of the doubt. Padillah (talk) 17:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because the text of this article has taken so long to work out, a major change should be talked over here first.--John Foxe (talk) 17:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oliver Cowdery's background is important because his magic world-view is similar to that of Smith. To remove the information that he was a rodsman is the worst sort of POV.--John Foxe (talk) 17:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here's what Bushman says about the "lost pages" matter: "In May he received a revelation telling him not to retranslate. Were he to bring out a new translation contradicting the first version, the people who had stolen the manuscript would say that 'he has lied in his words, and that he has no gift,' and claim 'that you have pretended to translate, but that you have contradicted your words.'" (74)--John Foxe (talk) 17:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not a little over emphatic, are we? "The worst sort of POV", seriously? I would think the worst sort of POV would be "Joseph Smith is a lying curr" or "Joseph Smith was the smartest man to have ever lived"... that sort of thing. Please, let's try to keep the tension out of the discussion. Or, at the very least, keep the name calling under control.
That being said, I can't see how Cowdry's background helps define or explain Smith. I say leave it out. If they met at a diving convention, you'd have a point. But simply being a diviner, as were several hundred other people that had nothing to do with Smith, is not enough for me. Padillah (talk) 17:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. I believe Cowdery's background is important and to remove that information is indeed the worst sort of POV. No uninformed reader coming to the sentence "Joseph Smith is a lying cur" is likely to accept the statement as neutral; but when information important to understanding is deliberately removed to promote a religious dogma, the reader would have no idea that it had been deliberately excluded.--John Foxe (talk) 18:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I tend to agree with the removal of Cowdry's background information. I'm not sure how Cowdry's background is worth having on a page about Smith. It certainly belongs on Cowdry's page, and perhaps on Origin of the Book of Mormon, but not on an introductory page about Smith. tedder (talk) 18:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Foxe, how is Cowdry's background pivotal to the readers understanding of Joseph Smith? What would the common reader never fully understand without the phrase "... a teacher and dowser"? Or is there something crucial in Cowdry's belief in spiritual rods? You've stated that you think it belongs in the article, I'm asking why? Maybe I just don't see it. Padillah (talk) 18:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Both men had a magical world view, as did Harris and the other Witnesses. That similarity needs to be emphasized because modern readers don't have a clue about the invisible world that surrounded the creation of the LDS Church. Besides Cowdery has to be introduced in some fashion. For instance, in the article we introduce John C. Bennett, M.D., as "the Illinois quartermaster general." Saying Cowdery was a "teacher and dowser" sums him up nicely with as little fuss as possible. Now if we said Cowdery was Joseph Smith's cousin, that would be true in a sense but so misleading as to be POV.--John Foxe (talk) 18:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, the "magical world view" is something harshly exaggerated and manipulated by critics using poor evidence. If you are stating this viewpoint repeatedly throughout the article, then what you are doing is putting in the article in the shoes of the critics viewpoint. There are those who disagree with the magic world viewpoint, and may see it as inapropriate that the article is worded to re-enforce it. As you stated in an early post you made about "sectional" viewpoints, you fail to understand that the magic world viewpoint is sectional to the extent that it is played on, exaggerated and used heavily by critics. You're accepting the critical view as mainstream here, and you've virtually admitted that you're stating the "magic world" viewpoint to potray the message of it in the article. You ought to avoid writing the article to sway a particular point of view, which you have clearly done.
Secondly, the "to ensure that the lost pages could not later be found and compared to the re-translation." ought to remain removed. It is point of view because it is summarising a direct conclusion and there is little direct evidence to support it and in turn it is a user drawn conclusion, therefore it shouldn't be in the article. This is directly what is warned against in WP:SYNTHESIS. I am tired of you reverting all of my changes, it is tiresome, provocative and downright annoying. Routerone (talk) 18:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the "to ensure that the lost pages could not later be found and compared to the re-translation." has no place in Wikipedia without a concrete citation placed firmly in context. This should not need to be discussed. The "Magical World View" shouldn't hinge on off-hand remarks made while introducing actors. Using it for that purpose almost seems sneaky to me. If we are going to include a point of view we should make it blatant and egregious, not something the reader should have to "read into". Padillah (talk) 19:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Smith's magical world view is not controversial among scholars and is accepted by both LDS and non-LDS historians.
If you want to credit the "lost pages" business to Bushman or even quote him, that's fine. It's just a footnote.--John Foxe (talk) 19:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to say that Smith's world view was controversial, just that it should be presented to the reader in plain, easy to read prose. Not insinuated by off-hand remarks made in discreet parts of the article. As for the lost pages remark, I've got no problem with where it is, just the context needs to be better established. It's speculation by Bushman and even he gives Smith the benefit of the doubt in suggesting the re-translation might be different. Padillah (talk) 20:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not set on the exact Cowdery language here, but I do think it's important to establish Cowdery's context. The reader wants to know who Cowdery was and why he so quickly and easily became Smith's closest associate. Just having some character appear out of nowhere in the middle of a narrative is not good storytelling. Given how important Cowdery was to Smith in the early period, I think we can spare a few words establishing his context.
As to the explanation about the lost pages, I don't see the controversy. That the reason was "to ensure that the lost pages could not later be found and compared to the re-translation" is the same explanation given in Mormon scripture, and Bushman confirms that reading of the scripture. Since this is the standard Mormon explanation, I don't understand why anyone would see this as an NPOV or OR issue. And we absolutely need to explain why, after spending so much time and effort to create these 116 pages, Smith just gave up on the Book of Lehi. COGDEN 23:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought Cowdery would have been introduced by now (in the article prose). I think I agree we can't just have him show up and be trusted with the plates and translation. He should be properly introduced and his position in the family and Smiths "circle of trust" be explained. Not in gratuitous detail but more than just "a teacher and a dowser".
As for the "lost pages" that's not quite how I read it. This may seem pedantic but I feel the phrase "to ensure that the lost pages could not later be found and compared to the re-translated text" suggests that the act of comparing them would be unfavorable. That's not quite the message the Church or Bushman is sending. They suggest that the comparison would be made so that any re-translation will fail to match-up completely and that would be used as ammunition against the Church. The first is fatalistic in that it assumes any comparison would, de facto, end badly. Padillah (talk) 03:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For Cowdery, I would want to say something roughly like the following: that he was "a friend of the Smith family whose education and folk magical background made him a natural choice to be Smith's scribe and most trusted follower."
For the "lost pages" issue, I think it was guaranteed that such a comparison would have been unfavorable. From the Mormon perspective, this is because, like the scripture said, there was a conspiracy of wicked men who intended to alter the original text to ensure that the comparison failed. Nobody, Mormon or non-Mormon, has ever suggested that the re-translation and the lost 116 pages would have ended up being consistent with each other. COGDEN 19:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, the entire note involved here, "Smith and Cowdery began translating...", is unnecessary detail for this article and can safely be relegated to Book of Mormon, where there is more room for elaborating on the situation. We need keep only the reference. I agree with the general sentiment that Cowdery should be adequately introduced, as he relates to Smith. ...comments? ~BFizz 05:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the detail is less important, which is why it is found in the footnotes rather than the main text. At the moment, I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other about deleting it from the footnote, but I'd like to see what others think. the point is discussed in all the references on Smith, and even references on broad church history like Allen & Leonard and Arrington & Bitten, and Brodie devotes a full page to it. But does that mean it an important point that should be in the article? I don't know. COGDEN 08:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like explanatory footnotes and don't see any harm including this one. I also don't get excited about removing helpful information in order to further a religious agenda. But as both B and COGDEN have implied, the note's not critical to any reader's understanding. I realize at Wikipedia you're not suppose to trade one thing for another, but I'd certainly be happy to forgo this note in exchange for a clearer reference to Cowdery's magic world-view, such as the one COGDEN has proposed above.--John Foxe (talk) 14:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Foxe, I think I agree that I like Cogden's Cowdrey intro as well. It's short and gets the points out there.
@Cogden, I think that's just the point I was making. The original footnote made it sound like any comparison would fail because the whole thing is bunk. I agree much more with your observation that there's no way some of these guys would let the comparisons be fair. The difference being someone actively making the comparison fail. Now, given that this is a footnote in a tangentially related article and we already have an entire article to dedicate to this I feel we can skip it here (other than to ref the other article). Padillah (talk) 12:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Smith's surprisening ancestry.

I got to read on a website that has his ancestry genealogy on there that had emperor constantine the great, viking and danish kings as ancestors. Is that all true? Its a website about the smith family that you can find on a link on Joseph Smith, Sr.'s website. Please answer me and thank you.- Jana —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.54.66.213 (talk) 21:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably true, but not very remarkable. Constantine and Viking and Danish kings have millions of ancestors. The further you go back, the more likely you are to have a royal ancestor. We all probably have royal blood if you go back far enough. COGDEN 05:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Supernatural Force?

"Smith said he attempted to remove the plates the next morning but was unsuccessful because the angel struck him down with supernatural force."

Can we exclude the "supernatural" in this sentence? It seems a bit redundant considering the fact that an ANGEL struck him down. --CABEGOD (talk) 04:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"with force" sounds like he was bitchslapped when "supernatural force" could simply sound like "held back, not allowed to progress with the plates". Perhaps "the angel struck him down with a force"? It seems much more clear and neutral that way. tedder (talk) 04:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Or, alternatively, The Force? ;) What words did Joseph himself use to describe it? Perhaps we can simply say that the angel "struck him down"? I personally see nothing wrong with saying "with supernatural force", redundant though it is. ...comments? ~BFizz 05:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about "...because the angel overwhelmed him with force" ? It sounds like more of a Heavenly Wedgie. --CABEGOD (talk) 05:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think as long as it's clear that it was a magical force, as opposed to just garden-variety bitchslapping, there shouldn't be a problem. "Struck him down with a force" is probably okay, or "struck him to the ground with a force", both of which at least imply magic. We don't know exactly the words Smith used when he told the story to others, but Cowdery said he was "shocked", Whitmer said "hurled" (clear off the hill Cumorah, in fact), I think Lucy Mack and Willard Chasesaid something like that he was "struck" by the angel. Fayette Lapham said that he "felt something strike him on the breast...such as to lay him upon his back". Smith's sister said there was a "pressure pushing him away". A couple of Smith's in-laws said he was "knocked down". COGDEN 06:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think "...because the angel struck him down with a force" would work.--CABEGOD (talk) 00:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this info coming from "struck down" and "with force". Oh, and the words "mystical" and/or "magical" are quite the touch for describing what was very firmly described personally by Joseph as "Sacred" and "Holy". Quite a play on words we get from the writers on here. Obviously the quoted text we are currently getting from this Wikipedia article is not from the personal account of Joseph Smith, Jr. because he never said anything such things. Only the Church which he started contains his original writings and manuscripts and the original writings and manuscript of those people who worked alongside the man. That means that all other outsider historians cannot quote Joseph correctly unless they refer to the publications of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. One cannot say there are any other believable sources for his words as former members that were unrepentant sinners who were excommunicated obviously had a hard biases against the prophet, and viciously attacked with their words. These cannot be believable accounts in historical record. As far as what splinter group churches currently may say...I'm not sure but I think all these churches together make up like less than 1% in Church membership as compared to the said Church. So they are not believable themeselves. Oh, and back then at the time by far the majority of the General Church Authorities stayed with the Church mentioned when it came time to decide after Joseph's death. So back to the original question, who else was there to eyewitness the event?? Nobody else. So this account must be coming from someone who wrote the hearsay of local folk or even more distant unbelievable witnesses. There was only one eye witness in that scene and it was Joseph himself. Period. Therefore no other account can be trusted. Would this not be a fair assessment? How would you like it if you wrote your own account of a lone personal experience that changed your life and then everyone started making up their own versions of what they think probably happened? That would be a source of invalid historical accounts and that is what makes up a good portion of the entire Wikipedia Joseph Smith, Jr. article. This is also why many church members shun this site. Basically it comes down to a fight, so since this article concerns the teachings of Jesus Christ it behooves us to not fight about it (contention is not of God). If you want the finest scholarly source that can be found on the subject look up "The Joseph Smith Papers." It is a relatively new project that is coming out in annual installments that will eventually comprise 30 volumes. It contains the photo copies of the original Joseph Smith's personal journal entries, correspondance, discourses and written histories, and legal and business documents written in his own hand or by the hands of those working alongside him.

There isn't a publication about this subject on this planet that is as scholarly as this one. I mean honestly, rumors written taken to be as historical fact??? Just because someone claims to be an authority, though they be from the same time does not make them so. Just because someone says they are an eyewitness does not mean they were. We have to learn to read inbetween the lines sometimes. Look at the statements from Joseph Smith, Jr. himself and then look at the garbage that is written about him and ask yourself if the two sides match. They do not. The character portrayed by these so called historical eye witnesses of the time do not at all match up with what the man said and what he taught. Only those who take enough care and time to search out and study these things know this. Otherwise it is just outside haters that throw up an off-hand at the man and trust unnofficial sources that claim scholarly research and work. What a diservice to Wikipedia. The only way you can get to know about Joseph Smith Jr and what he believed is by reading his own account and the account of those who worked along side him for substantial amounts of time. And such information is *not* located on Wikipedia.org currently.--steve200255 (talk) 20:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why we should trust anything that arch liar said. He conned the gullible into believing he could find buried treasure, swore he could see letters on gold plates by looking at a stone in his hat, and lied repeatedly to his wife about his additional "wives," a couple of whom were fourteen.129.82.88.48 (talk) 04:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joseph_Smith&oldid=367903191"