Talk:Joseph Smith

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)

The criticism of the Foundation for Apologetic Information & Research is now hopelessly out of date, Routerone.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)

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)

No, that was May 2009. The last update was January.--John Foxe (talk) 22:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

I think "...because the angel struck him down with a force" would work.--CABEGOD (talk) 00:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

Ahem. In between these two extremes of opinion, there is a middle ground that happily is what Wikipedia requires: using reliable, scholarly secondary sources as the main authority for this article. steve200255, you should note that a great deal of this article is referenced to Richard Bushman, who can't credibly be called anti-Mormon. He and all other good historians have to take into account not only what a person says about himself, but what his contemporaries, successors, admirers, and critics all say too. And Wikipedia should seek to reflect the balance of these sources. Similarly, to our anonymous contributor above: if a reliable scholarly source gives credence to something Joseph Smith claimed, this article should respect that regardless of one's own opinion about Joseph Smith's trustworthiness. And in any case, this is not the place to argue about matters of personal opinion. alanyst ^/talk/ 04:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Steve, you say that "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." Can you elaborate on exactly what you feel is missing, either from this article or from Teachings of Joseph Smith, Jr.? And how do you propose we fix it? Though not written from a "believing" perspective, Smith's teachings and character are explained fairly well here at wikipedia.org currently. ...comments? ~BFizz 07:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Just get rid of "supernatural." That will probably shut steve up and won't disappoint 129.82.88.48 too badly. --63.226.104.225 (talk) 16:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

When did angels begin to be described as magical beings? In all of Christiandom or Judaism I have never heard them described as magical. Angels are most often described as divine beings...how about divine force?

Although in scholarly material supernatural is a term used often in conjunction with describing the actions of God or other heavenly beings. The problem is that in more common language, which the vast majority of the readership of this site represents, it is interpreted with the world of magic or demonology. I think there is even a TV show called Supernatural. I see no need to use the term in this article. If it is too controversial to use divine, be basic...the angel prevented him from...--^StormRider 17:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

FWIW there are angels in the Fox series Supernatural so that's no help here. That said, I think the best compromise is just as you suggested - "...unsuccessful because the angel prevented him..." Leave it to the reader to surmise if the angel used supernatural force or not. Padillah (talk) 18:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

"Prevented him" is too generic and non-descriptive. "Struck him down with a force" is better, and it doesn't even need to address what kind of force it was. COGDEN 19:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Above I'm reading "knocked down", "struck", "hurled"... you're right, there was force involved. If it continues to be an issue I'm OK with "Struck him down with a force" Padillah (talk) 11:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Done! Removed "supernatural" from the sentence in question. --CABEGOD 00:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Erroneous statements

Thank you Cabe, that's a small start. I'll go over just a few of the other erroneous statements in the article...as an example of what I'm talking about concerning the overall poor quality of the article:

"With his family, he took part in religious folk magic". Hmm, I don't see that written anywhere in Church literature. Sounds like a fabrication to me. What's more the link of "religious folk magic" just points to a WP article about "Folk religion" which makes no mention of the word "magic". As Rider mentions above "magic" is commonly seen as close to or the same thing as sorcerery. The Holy Bible's New Testament denounces sorcerers and sorcereries to be of Satan. Seems as though this Bushman author is not so neutral after all...

another bad sentence: "both his parents and his maternal grandfather had *mystical* visions...". Yea, this is another play on words. The word "mystical" in most societies is held in close proximity to those who practice magic and those who will read your palm and tell you your future for money. It is just an innapropriate word that is used in a calculated way to discredit what they said was their personal revelations from God. Once again, this description is absent from Church manuscripts and personal journals of the members of the Church.

Anonymous poster, I'm sorry I don't know what you're referring to when you say "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." Those must have all been made-up by someone's imagination. I don't find those statements anywhere. He did translate the plates by way of what are called the "Urim and Thummim" which he said were prepared by the hand of the Lord for this purpose. But he didn't say the stones were in any hat, and he never used them to try to find "treasure". The plates already had characters on them but it was in a language nobody there could read. The plural marriage thing is true, and by Joseph's own account 'the commandment by God to practice it was one of the most unwanted and difficult things he ever had to do.' He said this was in fullfillment of the prophecy by ancient prophets that "in the last days there shall be a restoration of all things". This would include what Mormons believe the Lord commanded ancient prophets to do for His own purposes which it is speculated that it was to multiply the righteous people in the earth, especially when war killed off many men. In any account the message from Joseph on the subject is very clear: it was a grievous and sore trial/test that many did not make it through. In my opinion it put undue tensions on his personal marriage at a time when all a normal men would have wanted in such a scene of mob violence, hatred, tensions, and responsibility for the well-being of thousands of people would have been to escape or to have peace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve200255 (talk • contribs) 05:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Read here some of what the official "Church History" says that Joseph Smith Jr. said about his own experiences. It contrasts heavily with what Quinn and Bushmen and other sources used here say:

Joseph Smith History (extracts from the history of Joseph Smith, The Prophet. History of the Church, Vol. 1, Chapters 1-5)

Can be found online here: http://scriptures.lds.org/js_h/1

Corrections to the Wikipedia article both in wording and in substance:

Concerning the obtaining of the record written on gold plates and the seer stones. These are key sentences and phrases applicable to this discussion throughout the reference. After Joseph was visited and ministered to by a messenger (who called himself Moroni sent down from the presence of the Lord, and who was the same being who had sealed up the said record during his own mortal life and buried it for protection from the apostacized and the other wicked) about the whole night he felt exhausted and had little strength left to go about his daily chores. From this setup we read: Joseph Smith History 1:48-54 " I shortly after arose from my bed, and as usual, went to the necessary labors of the day; but, in attempting to work as at other times, I found my strength so exhausted as to render me entirely unable. My father, who was laboring along with me, discovered something to be wrong with me, and told me to go home. I started with the intention of going to the house; but, in attempting to cross the fence out of the field where we were, my strength entirely failed me, and I fell helpless on the ground, and for a time was quite unconscious of anything. The first thing that I can recollect was a voice speaking unto me, calling me by name. I looked up, and beheld the same messenger standing over my head, surrounded by light as before. He then again related unto me all that he had related to me the previous night, and commanded me to go to my father and tell him of the vision and commandments which I had received. I obeyed..."

and then we read "convenient to the village of manchester, Ontario country, New York, stands a hill of considerable size, and the most elevated of any in the neighborhood. On the west side of thie hill, not far from the top, under a stone of considerable size, lay the plates, deposited in a stone box..." "...having removed the earth, I obtained a lever, which I got fixed under the edge of the stone, and with a little exertion raised it up. I looked in, and there indeed did I behold the plates, the Urim and Thummim, and the breasplate, as stated by the messenger. The box in which they lay was formed by laying stones together in some kind of cement. In the bottom of the box were laid two stones crossways of the box, and on these stones lay the plates and the other things with them."

Then "I made an attempt to take them out, but was forbidden by the messenger, and was again informed that the time for brigning them forth had not yet arrived, neither would it, until four years from that time; but he told me that I should come to that place precisely in one year from that time, and that he would there meet with me, and that I should continue to do so until the time should come for obtaining the plates. Accordingly, as I had been commanded, I went at the end of each year, and at each time I found the same messenger there, and received instruction and intelligence from him at each of our interviews, respecting what the Lord was going to do, and how and in what manner his kingdom was to be conducted in the last days."

Do you see any contradictions in either tone or in fact regarding what these authors said and what you read here? Joseph said 'I was forbidden to take out the plates'. This is very different from the violent imagery 'struck down with force'. I ask that this be corrected in the article.

In other parts of "Joseph Smith--History" it says that under difficult financial times he became employed by a man who mined silver. This is in stark contrast to "treasure-digging". I wonder what that means anyway...treasure-digging. Does Quinn think Joseph was trying to find a pirate's buried treasure? Hahaha, wow I don't know who could believe anything Quinn says just from reading that statement alone. Obviously the object in mind for the author Quinn is to get the reader to believe that Joseph Smith Jr. was some guy fascinated with and obsessive about finding treasure by way of digging, thereby introducing the idea that Joseph may have fabricated the whole Book of Mormon recorded on golden plates. Typical anti-mormon word play. I request that the article read what is recorded in the said reference that Joseph Smith became employed by a silver mining company, briefly, and that he did so only because there was no other employment available to him. That's what he said in his own journal.

I have issue with another word used in the article near the beginning "cosmology". This term is defined as the study of the universe. I don't think this is an appropriate term because the word is used in science and not in religion. In fact, the word makes a reader think of the word "astrology" which is connected with "mystical" and "metaphysical" and "magic" and "fortune telling" which, as mentioned is popularly associated with demonology. Again, a calculated word placed to get a reader to discredit the man. I ask that it be removed. Just one more proof of the slant of this article.

another bad phrase: "That summer, after the Nauvoo Expositor criticized his power and new doctrines, such as plural marriage, Smith and the Nauvoo city council ordered the destruction of the newspaper as a nuisance." This omits critical information, thereby leading a reader to believe Smith was a tyrannical ruler. I ask that a more correct and appropriate description of the scene substitute what is currently in the article with something from a source like this:

"...A posse had come for Joseph and Hyrum that morning warning that the governor had promised to garrison troops in Nauvoo until the brothers submitted to arrest. 6 The brethren were told that the people of Nauvoo feared what the troops might do. A discussion ensued. At its end, Hyrum said, “Let us go back and give ourselves up, and see the thing out. On the morning of Tuesday, June 25, events moved rapidly. Joseph and Hyrum, charged with riot for the June 10 destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor press, surrendered themselves to Constable Davis Bettisworth in Carthage despite being acquitted earlier on related charges. Nauvoo City Council members, feeling that the press threatened their lives and liberties by inciting mob violence against them, had ruled, within the rights they felt were granted by the Nauvoo Charter, that the newspaper was a public nuisance. As directed by the city council, the Prophet, acting as mayor, had then ordered the marshal to destroy the press. The whole countryside was in a state of confusion. Mormons feared and distrusted their enemies, and their enemies feared the power of the Mormons if provoked. Rumors bred rumors. Armed men practiced military drills everywhere. Day after day men crossed and recrossed the Mississippi River from Missouri as attacks upon Nauvoo were planned and canceled" ("Martyrdom at Carthage", Reed Blake, Ensign, June 1994)

As I have just proven this WP article is completely one-sided. Someone mentioned the value of a "fair and balanced" approach using all sides? I just proved this article is completely one-sided, and not in favor of what the historical figures wrote about themselves. I would have thought this should have raised a red flag to everyone. Glad I'm bringing it up now then.

Alanyst said that we should seek to reflect all viewpoints to give balance. Bfizz remarked that the article is not written from "a believing perspective". That's just the point, its entirely written from "a dis-believing perspective". All one-sided, calculated to discredit Joseph Smith Jr. as a person, as a prophet, and as a good man. Not only that, it seeks to do the same to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints. It's aim is to leave a bad taste in the reader's mouth about the prophet and the church. So you're going to have to insert my suggestions into the article to start to give the article a more balanced feel. Someone said that "Bushman can't be credibly called an anti-mormon". I beg to differ. I don't care what the man is called, his views and incorrect historical accounts are exactly in line with all anti-mormon literature. Bushman may be a Mormon himself, but all the biggest anti-mormons have been or think they still are. I have come across individuals who desperately wanted to join the church for the express reason of being in a position to have more clout to renounce the Church. That's how dedicated some anti-mormons are. Bushman is anything but neutral.

That's all for now, that's just a start. This lengthy post was all neccessary to shed some new light on the subject. I would like the requested actions to be taken though to give the article more balance from the opposing viewpoints. Steve200255 (talk) 04:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Steve, first off, no one is going to read anything as long as the rant you posted above. You need to be concise and to the point. We are all volunteers here and we should respect other peoples time. Second, you need to understand, you may well believe the church, but there are some who don't. You have every right to believe in your heart that the prophet spoke words of God, but you must realize the pragmatism of enforcing that belief on others. You also need to understand that the Church has a point of view, they are not neutral in their defense of their own dogma. Just because the Church didn't say it doesn't mean it's not true. Heck, how much have you heard about Brigham Young's Adam-God theory? Or the Mountain Meadows massacre? Or the war against the United States government? All due respect but you have got to realize that the Church is slanted... towards the Church. The argument you are presenting is akin to asking us to believe Van der Sloot didn't do it because the police asked him and he said "no", would he lie to the police? If you have individual resource that can be examined please bring them forward (on a point by point basis) but you insult the intelligence of everyone here when you bring up Church documents in a manner indicating we didn't think of those already. Do you really think we missed something as big as the entire Mormon doctrine? Padillah (talk) 15:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Padillah you're absolutely right about the size of that post. I guess I thought the people on here lacked information and so I went overboard. Won't happen again. Also, I apologize if I offended or insulted anyone, but it seems that my people are the only ones being attacked here. Some here may claim that I'm talking from an opinionated standpoint but that in and of itself is a big claim to make. Is it not? Just because I believe in the doctrine doesn't alienate me from this discussion. Just because I have an opinion doesn't make my statements opinionated. I speak from a factual standpoint. If you want to say I'm talking in a biased way you're just going to have to give some examples. I'm talking about real history here. To claim that the Church is slanted has never been proven in any way. In theory, as you say, the Church has an incentive to slant towards itself with biased edited histories, but you have no way of proving that. I'm sorry, but you're making a huge blanket statement. You need to support that argument with facts. If you want to claim that no neutral or factual information about LDS church history can come from the LDS church or its members, that it's impossible then you're automatically plunging yourself into the literature of anti-mormon people. They dominate that market in hordes. They never call themselves anti-mormon, of course, just as you wouldn't call yourself anti-mormon. SOME of these people individualy might not hate the church but all their sources can only come from one of two places: The Church/members, or those who only heard bad stuff about the church from anti-mormon people. Back then, because of this, there weren't any neutral people. And, unfortunately they are the only sources. So this idea of an ideal neutral source, as you define it, is a fallacy. Sure I know all about the Brigham Young Adam/God doctrine and the Meadow Mountains Massacre and the supposed insurrection against the United States. You must think that I'm an idiot not knowing about this stuff while being a member. Padillah, if you want to correct people on insulting others it would be good not to insult them in your reply. Accusing me of not being able to think for myself, one who is fooled by his church, an ignorant person. That's quite an insult to my intelligence. But I'm not suprised when you read what you read thinking it is neutral material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve200255 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Steve, you need to read WP:RS to understand what constitutes a reliable source here at Wikipedia. (By the way, you can sign your posts with four tildes.)--John Foxe (talk) 19:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

ok, the rules say: "cannot be published by the church or its members" for a source to be reliable. This means that all references attributable to Richard Bushman must be deleted. Steve200255 (talk) 20:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Steve, the rule isn't "Cannot be published by the Church but you can't be as intelligent as you claim and still think the Church is perfectly honest and forthright in all it's dealings. If nothing else you must admit a slant towards believing Joseph Smith Jr.'s every word with little or no basis in reality. Understand that if you deny this you deny the Church, you either believe the Church and believe that Joseph Smith Jr. was a prophet or you don't. There is no documentation, no picture of the angel Moroni, no footprints in the grass, no "burning bush". There is only testimony of the three, testimony of the eight, and testimony of the Prophet. And you'll forgive the implication but, people can lie. Do I mean to bring the Prophet under attack? No, absolutely not. I mean to exist in the real world with knowledge of the evils of man. The Church teaches you to question, even to question the Prophet, that is all we are doing. The disdain for others, that don't believe as you do, is palpable in your posts. If you re-read my post I never claimed you had not heard of the situations I listed. Indeed, I asked how much you had heard, implying that you have heard at least a little. So your offense at thinking a thing that was, in point of fact, the opposite of what I had presented leaves me wondering what I'm supposed to think. I never intended to insult you, I was only trying to get to a point that you would view the Church from a "worldly" point of view. This may not be desirable to you, but it must be done to render a neutral point of view. Padillah (talk) 21:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Steve200255, this can be a calm discussion instead of a contentious argument, but we need your cooperation for that to happen. You can help be a peacemaker by taking others' comments in good faith, such as John Foxe's suggestion to review the rules about reliable sources. Your quote of what the rules "say" is clearly not a real quote, and is suggestive of an effort to make a rhetorical point instead of stating your position outright. Why not actually follow the link, read the policy, and ask yourself how it applies to the sources used (and not used) for this article? Then tell us your conclusions and we can discuss them collegially.

Above, you seem to have argued that sources that aren't in line with the official LDS history, or that cover aspects of Joseph Smith's life that the LDS history doesn't cover, are inherently anti-Mormon. Is that a fair characterization of your stance? It is curious to me that you cast Richard Bushman into the "anti-Mormon" crowd, since a search at lds.org shows that he's been published and/or quoted in LDS Church publications various times over the past few decades—hardly the treatment one would expect for the writings of an "anti-Mormon"—and he seems to be generally regarded as both an excellent historian and a devout Latter-day Saint. Perhaps some of the sources are not as biased against Mormonism as you assume? alanyst ^/talk/ 21:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey Steve, You may notice that your concise, respectful, and well thought out input is quickly attacked as 'Mormon Point of View." That is the trend here on the article. Notice too that while you did not mention any specific individuals, merely the content and its bias, that you are quickly attacked for being disrespectful and ranting. Methinks the cynics doth protest too much. Seems you hit a sensitive nerve. I too tried to play by the rules in pointing out the glaring bias in the article but quickly gave up. The group dynamic here is pretty well entrenched and closed. Case in point, notice Padillah's comment that, "...you can't be as intelligent as you claim and still think the Church is perfectly honest and forthright in all it's dealings." Hmmm, you can't? So contributors must be apostate or at least hesitant in their beliefs? I don't think I've read anythng more cynical or ridiculous. I guess assuming good faith applies to everyone unless they are Mormons, their leaders, or their Church.

And as to Foxe's complaints about reliable source, here that means any reliable source that does not portray Joseph Smith in a good light. What it is supposed to mean is the source, the text, and the publisher must be reliable. Simply saying Joseph Smith is unreliable because you aren't LDS (or quoting from mostly unreliable and biased sources of skeptics who don't believe him either) is the worst bias and unfair. Yes, they'll argue Bushman but only use his writings which portray Joseph negatively. Remember, Bushman set out to identify Smith's normal human flaws because he was tired of the these were unfairly portrayed by other Smith critics. And still he concludes his writings with some beautiful insights into the incredibly principled and brave man Smith was, all of which is conveniently absent here.

If Brodie (a lady with serious personal issues who was in love with Thomas Jefferson) is reliable, Smith is reliable. Smith's writings, in context, are reliable. And the publishers (usually the Church) would only be argued as unreliable by enemies or biased cynics of Joseph Smith. So Joseph is a reliable source, his writings and history are reliable, and the publishers are reliable. It is for Foxe to prove (not merely state POV) otherwise, and he isn't doing a very convincing job especially given his stated bias against the LDS Church. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.180.110.164 (talk) 14:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I better run, I'm on a hiatus from posting because I was taking too much flack and found the process of contributing a pointless waste of time. I remain here, sitting under my troll-bridge.

Word of advice, spend your nights with your family. Leave this article to the controllers of the article, remembering that time is on the side of truth. The dogs may bark, but the caravan rolls on.

199.60.41.15 (talk) 02:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

@173.180.110.164 - You'll also notice that I pointed out the Church encourages you to question, it was Joseph Smith's questioning of then current religions that led to his finding the plates and establishing the religion. Questioning is not an apostasy. There's a world of space between "blind faith" and apostasy and I hope you allow for that space in your world view.

As for Joseph Smith being unreliable, no one here is saying any such thing. We are quoting the rules of Wikipedia for you to read, which you are not doing. No one is saying Joseph Smith is unreliable, we are saying he's Joseph Smith. Should you find your way clear to read the policies of WP you'll find that Wikipedia requires we pull information from secondary sources, sources that are not the creators of said information. Joseph Smith does not qualify as a Reliable Source for the article on Joseph Smith because he IS Joseph Smith, not because he's unreliable. Notice, I said "he does not qualify" not "he's unreliable". Every person on this talk page that has brought up Reliable Sources has brought them up in reference to this policy, not to besmirch Joseph Smith. There are much better venues for decrying the name of the Prophet than a Wikipedia talk page.

I've got a challenge, If Bushman is the one you want to concentrate on then fine. He's been accepted as a Reliable Source so let's use him. Find a statement from Bushman you feel should be in the article. Give us a citation for the statement and where you think it fits into the article. Rather than try to essentially convert us to Mormonism (which is funny from my point of view) how about you provide us proof that a statement belongs in the article? Padillah (talk) 19:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

This is what I have gleaned from reading this: Steve has valid concerns about the article. We need to address those concerns. Some of his concerns are not valid - but we should extend the courtesy of a meaningful explanation. Foxe needs to elaborate on what he thinks was/is not a reliable source regarding Steve's comment. Steve and Padillah should probably not engage eachother on whether or not Joseph/The Church 's teaching were correct. Let us talk about how to make the article better in a NPOV kind of way. Thanks. --Suplemental (talk) 19:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Then I have seriously misrepresented myself. I never meant to engage anyone on the veracity of the Church's teachings. And I most certainly never meant to question the teachings of the Prophet beyond the pragmatics of Wikipedia policy. My apologies if it appeared that I was doing anything other than that. Padillah (talk) 20:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:RS says (among other things):

• "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible."
• "Material such as an article or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable. If the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses, generally it has been at least preliminarily vetted by one or more other scholars."
• Questionable sources are (among other things) those that are "promotional in nature."

Therefore, Joseph Smith's own writings are of marginal importance as Wikipedia sources, far less acceptable than those of scholarly secondary authors, for instance, his biographers Bushman and Brodie. Material from an apologetic website, such as that of the Foundation for Apologetic Information & Research, is unacceptable for two reasons: it is promotional, and its publications have not been vetted in peer-reviewed publications. (Note that an article in the Journal of Mormon History is, by contrast, a reliable source by Wikipedia standards because its articles have been vetted by scholars.)--John Foxe (talk) 21:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Padillah, apology fairly accepted. The problem is what was revealed in your statement, "You can't be as intelligent as you claim and still think the Church is perfectly honest and forthright in all it's dealings." See it reveals a clear bias against the LDS Church and its integrity. I don't fault you for holding such an opinion. That's your right. But the truth is either that the LDS Church is honest in its dealings, or it's not. But when you speak from such a biased position it taints every contribution you make to this article as suspect. Wikipedia says we should assume good faith, but if I meet a guy on the street carrying a sign reading 'Joseph Smith is a Liar,' don't expect me to put any money in his jar. Please remove yourself from contributing until you can approach the article more fair-mindedly or with a lot less bias. 173.180.110.164 (talk) 01:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

I apologize to the others here but since there is no user talk page I can take this to it'll have to gum up this page for a little while longer. Do you not understand that the Church believes that the Church is the One True Church? As such it firmly believes that Joseph Smith was a Prophet of Heavenly Father. How can you not see the bias inherent in that system? Look how long it took for the Church to distance itself from the Adam-God theory. They didn't have the ability to contradict their prophet until years after his death. You act as though incidents like the Salamander cover-up never happened. Just because the letter was a fake doesn't mean the Church didn't try to cover it up. But none of those things means the teachings of the Church are wrong. You appear to be confusing the people in the Church with the doctrine and dogma of the Church. People can be fallible and yet the teachings of Jesus Christ still be true. How dare you impugn my belief in the Church because of my ability to separate the teachings from the faults of the human entities that run the Church. You don't know me and you have no idea what I believe. Please if you need clarification, ask, don't assume. That being said I will contribute exactly as much as I feel warranted. It is you that needs to remove the beam from thine own eye first. Until you have the ability to see the Church through a critical eye, your contributions will be decidedly biased and of no use here. And please understand when I say the next time you impugn my belief system I will consider it a personal attack. Padillah (talk) 11:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Suplemental's assessment and suggestions. This entire section for me was tl;dr. Suplemental said, "Steve has valid concerns about the article. We need to address those concerns." Can we please create talk page headings or subheadings for each concern so as to make it easy to discuss and resolve each one? ...comments? ~BFizz 03:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Suplemental's direction to go from here. I'll respond to a few comments briefly. First, I never meant to sound or be contentious here, just trying to get a fair academic-type representation of the man called Joseph Smith Jr.. That's all I want or expect out of a public forum. To say that I'm expecting people to believe in Joseph Smith to be a prophet is simply not true. I've only talked about what are facts and who can be relied upon to deliver those facts--reliable sources in other words. In the eyes of the world and WP we must deliver these facts by way of secondary sources whenever possible, so as to prevent the claim that someone is lying to us out of their own bias and self-seeking interest. Our subject in this WP article is unique in several ways in that biases could be deemed to be just as strong against the man as they were for the man. Proof of this lies in the universally recognized incessant mob violence against him on the one hand, and those who gave up all they possess to follow him on the other. So the burden of the proof of a NPOV source is significant, in the eyes of the world. Is my logic ok so far? I will go a step further and postulate that those who were in those mobs, at the time, were not quiet in their opinions given the knowledge that mobs do not form unless there is outspoken public disdain. So now we have proof of regular and intense outspoken loud public disdain against the man called Joseph Smith Jr.. Popular opinion is a seed bed for bringing others onboard. So non-witnesses and total strangers now have a very strong perception that the man called Joseph the Prophet is of the worst sort of humanity on earth. Even before they come accross him they hate him. Is it any wonder that they found evil in the man looking through those kinds of lenses? Have you ever known someone to unfairly judge another person just because they already hated them? Is anyone here getting the notion that finding a neutral second source will be difficult?

Given all this we need to discuss what seems most easy to me to resolve here: what to do whenever Joseph Smith had a lone experience. Take, for example, the multiple visitations of the angel Moroni to Joseph. From a WP requirement and from an entirely skeptical perspective we need to get a second witness to speak up about it. The problem is there is no second witness. What do we do then? If you read any of my really long post above you will find a stark contrast between what Joseph Smith himself said (found in preserved journals and manuscripts from the time) and what others say happened who were never there (the current WP article). Steve200255 (talk) 06:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Very astute and cogent presentation. And a fine representation of the predicament we find ourselves in. May I add, this predicament is exacerbated by the feeling that presenting Joseph Smith in a positive light is to present his teachings in a positive light and that then looks like proselytizing. We need to divorce ourselves of the impression that speaking well of the man is to support the man's beliefs. You can praise Nixon for establishing the EPA, OSHA and the Council on Environmental Quality yet still understand the man resigned due to scandal. This is the point of view we must take with Joseph Smith Jr. present the man as he was, bad and good, and let neither detract from the whole. As for his personal experiences we can only present them as personal experiences that Smith said he had. I personally don't believe they need special handling as long as they are presented as Smith's portrayal of a personal experience. We should be careful not to present them as objective anecdotes rather as subjective stories. (FWIW, I had to go with Nixon to avoid Godwin's Law) Padillah (talk) 12:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

By the way, another statement has been overlooked. If the attitude of "anything that isn't for the Mormon church is against it" is assumed to be a guiding principle, this article will never satisfy the strong adherents of the church. That's because a truly neutral page will be seen as "not for the church" and thus be termed anti-mormon. This article is actually not that unusual, except for the number of strong-willed people it tends to attract: in other words, it's a simple case of conflict of interest and verifiability policy that prevents us from using something from Joseph Smith himself as a reliable source. It's worth keeping in mind that WP:V and WP:RS are two of the 5 pillars that Wikipedia is organized around. This article is no exception to those principles, no matter how strongly people may feel about ensuring a specific version of The Truth is portrayed. tedder (talk) 12:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for coming out and calling us "whin[ers]" again, Tedder. Your statement that, "This article will never satisfy the strong adherents of the church," clearly reveals a prejudiced and unfair bias. "Never?" Did you really mean that? Do you really believe that? I think you will find the LDS people quite fair-minded. What you will also find is we are generally a highly-educated people who are smart enough to recognize when something is not right. But since you're in charge around here, I'll climb back under my "troll" (your word not mine) bridge now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.180.110.164 (talk) 14:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I would like to give my bit in this:

Overly, I think the non-Mormons in this article ought to get their facts right. Nobody is saying that anything that is "not mormon" is "Anti-mormon" in all due to respect. However, what you fail to understand is that there is a difference between something which is "not mormon" and "anti-mormon" in nature. My definition of "anti-mormonism" is "Something that condemns, attempts to crsuh, minimize, hold back, or openly attack the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints." also, my view of "neutral" is "Something which upholds never viewpoint and irrespectively has no fundamental interests or alliances with the subject in question.". Now, in the case of this page. I do not view it as neutral to the LDS View. The page is written in an incredibly negative prose + structure. This is done by a) Selection of mostly negative factors and minimization + downplay of positive ones. Some of these negative factors are established by self created author conclusions/judgements, synthesis. If a factor or source is incredibly critical or skepitcal to the LDS movement, then it is viewed as "neutral" in the sense. It is allowed. If a factor is positive in any way towards the LDS Movement, it is "bias", "ideological", "POV", etc. It is not allowed. It is strange how this source quotes a bomb of anti-mormon books written by writers with deep prejudices against the church. Yet pro-LDS sources are not allowed, their viewpoint is not "mainstream" either, but is the anti-mormon view mainstream? It certainly varies from the neutral viewpoint on the church, which is "I dont care". But also, the selection of negative facts is accompanied by a highly negative presentation, prose and style of writing. It is "spin", it is damaging, and I am incredibly worried about the effects that this is having on LDS readers. I sweat as it may strip away their faith like flesh being cut by a rusty knife, because the average reader does not know the backtrack behind the venomous and adbominable lies and manipulative tricks in the framework of this page. Because the authors who sat and built this article, intended to have it like this. That's why they will not have anyone change it. They have took control of this page, and many others. If you change it, they revert you. You revert back, they report you. This is supposed to be the encyclopedia to which anyone can edit, but this is the prime of authoritarian fascism within all its glory. To suggest we are "irrelevant" and "insignificant" is painful, unfair, and dark. It simply cannot go on like this. If I moan, people tell me to "change it myself", but how can I when every single attempt is reverted without question? Just what can be done? For no other religious page is written in such a rude, critical, abrupt and skeptical manner, and are they bias towards that particular subject? Are Mainstream proper encyclopedias bias too? Can you possibly justify these differences? Routerone (talk) 15:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

All due respect to those complaining about how they've been treated but, is there a citable source in our future? I've not been on this page for very long and I've been the subject of personal attacks and had my beliefs called into question. How about we stop talking about editors and start talking about edits? Now, having said that, please understand that there is no impetus for accepting primary source material except in special circumstances and there is a difference between a citation and a belief system. That said, I implore someone (I don't care who) to propose an edit and cite it's source so we can improve the article. Padillah (talk) 17:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Padillah, I agree! Routerone, you say that "It is strange how this source quotes a bomb of anti-mormon books written by writers with deep prejudices against the church." Can you specify a few specific examples of where you feel anti-mormon sources are used unfairly? And please, keep it brief. Thanks. Same goes for Steve, Canadiandy, and anyone else who has raised inspecific issues in this discussion. ...comments? ~BFizz 01:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I would be happy just once to hear someone say the following;

"Hey Canadiandy. You, Steve, and Routerone have some very valid concerns. The fact that you and so many other LDS people (FAIRLDS, Steve, Routerone, yourself...) are so offended by this particular article makes me think maybe we should seriously look into it. I see how heavily this article draws from research collected by old school historians with an axe to grind or with no sensitivity to your faith as a formal religion. You're right, most (if not all)other religions are afforded a greater respect and tolerance than seems to have been here historically. I see that you are not merely "Whin[ing]" but are expressing frustration with the original tenor and cynical direction this article's framework was originally built on. I see that it is not merely a few small details that can be ironed out over a short period of time but an entire rethinking of the article that is likely needed. I also understand fully why you might feel so disenfranchised by the process. So, seeing we need to start hacking at the roots and not merely the leaves of the problem, what do you and any neutral researchers suggest we might do?"

As opposed to the now cliche rebuttals;

1. Quit whining. 2. Suggest a change (which we will belabor for weeks or simply revert) or shut up. 3. Joseph Smith is not a reliable source, his enemies are reliable because they are secondary while those who liked Smith don't count as they will obviously be biased. 4. Don't be so rude, remember assume good faith (even if it from those who are rudely hostile towards your own faith). 5. Why are you complaining, COgden is LDS and he doesn't have a problem with it. 6. We use Bushman and he's LDS (even though we only use the 'bad' parts).

The biggest waste of time would be to bury our heads in the sand and pretend that this is really close to a "Good Article" and we'll fix this by arguing over the word 'supernatural.' We need a huge paradigm shift or we'll continue on in this bizarre and cyclical Catch 22.

My serious proposal is that we revert back to , and begin again. It was much shorter, more concise, and much less biased. Seems pretty fairly neutral from where I stand. 173.180.110.164 (talk) 03:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

So you want us to say I see that you are not merely "Whin[ing]" but are expressing frustration with the original tenor and cynical direction this article's framework was originally built on. But instead of mentioning specific examples of why this is the case, you simply assert that it is (which indeed sounds like whining). So convince me. Show me concrete examples of the article's "cynical direction", and then I will aid you in correcting the issue. ...comments? ~BFizz 04:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, BFizz, randomly I found the following;

"During the next four years, Smith made annual visits to Cumorah, only to return without the plates because he claimed that he had not brought with him the "right person" required by the angel."

Am I the only one who can see the cynicism dripping in this one? The phraseology, "only to return without" as opposed to "returning each time without" lends negative commentary. And if it is him claiming it, why the need to put the "right person" in quotation marks. This lends the tone that we have to question anything Smith says directly even when it is already qualified with the phrase "he claimed."

I think if you really deconstruct this thing neutrally it will become quite apparent this is an unfairly designed and written article as it stands. So now, will you please carry through with your promise and aid us in a fresh start?

Who else is willing to stay on if we start from a do over with the original article (29 Aug 2003) as the starting point?

173.180.110.164 (talk) 06:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

Padillah has remedied the scare quotes. I'm still not convinced that there is a huge, deep, underlying problem with the article. I do not have the time to "hack at the roots" of a problem that I do not believe exists. But I am more than willing to help with the "leaves". ...comments? ~BFizz 18:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break, part 2

Whether or not we are doing a fresh start: about the specific example I opened up in my last post...does anyone have any ideas about how to proceed? I would really like discussion on this. Canadiandy, your question assumes we have already accepted the authors Quinn and Bushman as reliable authors who used reliable second sources in their works. As you can read above, there is another account that says Smith said no such things. So lets first establish who can reliably speak for Joseph's lone experiences. Does this sound like a good way to go forward? Please, my question is repeated a third time. What does the community say on this topic? Steve200255 (talk) 07:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

A faith-promoting article about Joseph Smith is not being checked by skeptics like me—I think I'm about the only non-Mormon who regularly contributes here—but by Wikipedia rules that privilege scholarly, peer-reviewed, secondary material published by "well-regarded academic presses" over primary sources interpreted by apologetic organizations. In other words, Brodie, Bushman, Quinn, Shipps, and Vogel satisfy the ground rules established by Wikipedia; Joseph Smith—History and the FAIR website do not.

Although your complaint ("whining," if you like) seems directed against skeptical editors and anti-Mormon sources, in fact, frustration at your inability to appreciably revise a thoroughly researched academic article (and this one matches both in historical accuracy and literary quality any contained in a paper encyclopedia) into a faith-promoting one ultimately arises from the nature of Wikipedia itself.--John Foxe (talk) 09:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

@Foxe, that was the most circumlocutious answer I think I've ever read. Just tell him that, as is the case with any private conversation or belief all we are allowed to report is that "Joseph Smith claims to have..." We have to keep the primary sources in context. We have to keep the reader aware of the fact that there is no one to back up these claims. But they are so central to the history of Joseph Smith we cannot leave them out. By the same token, if we have reliable accounts of Joseph Smith contradicting his own story those should be represented as well.

@Anon, you are right to question what we call "Scary quotes". Their use in the phrase you mention is completely without merit. Those should be removed. As for starting from scratch, I don't honestly see the point other than putting the article in a state more amenable to one side or the other. If there are specific examples of things that are wrong, let's fix them. I do not think three more months of debate about which version we should revert back to only to start over is the best use of time.

@Canadiandy Hey Canadiandy. You, Steve, and Routerone have some very valid concerns. The fact that you and so many other LDS people (FAIRLDS, Steve, Routerone, yourself...) are so offended by this particular article makes me think maybe we should seriously look into it. I see how heavily this article draws from research collected by old school historians with an axe to grind or with no sensitivity to your faith as a formal religion. You're right, most (if not all)other religions are afforded a greater respect and tolerance than seems to have been here historically. I see that you are not merely "Whin[ing]" but are expressing frustration with the original tenor and cynical direction this article's framework was originally built on. I see that it is not merely a few small details that can be ironed out over a short period of time but an entire rethinking of the article that is likely needed. I also understand fully why you might feel so disenfranchised by the process. So, seeing we need to start hacking at the roots and not merely the leaves of the problem, what do you and any neutral researchers suggest we might do?

There, now will you suggest a change? Or is there more specific phraseology you need me to use to get you to contribute to this article rather than attack it's contributors?

@Everyone, I suggest all of us here read the principle of B.R.D. and apply it to this article. We are going to need to exercise some Good Faith toward each other. If you see a change that needs to be made: prepare yourself, make the change, if it gets reverted bring the discussion here. When the discussion has yielded a result, edit the article to reflect the consensus result. There will need to be concrete citations for any change made, and/or concrete rebuttals to any change rejected. You know, the way we edit any Wikipedia article.

Now, I'm gonna go change that phrase the anon mentioned earlier. Please fell free to join me. Padillah (talk) 12:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Padillah and Steve. I am prepared to be BOLD but want to discuss first. Yes Padillah, I suggest a change. That change is a revert to August 29, 2003. As to John Foxe's statement he is the only non-member contributing, that is because he and COgden seem to be the only two who don't have their edits reverted. Si if I have Padillah, Steve, and Routerone on side for a do over (revert to august 29, 2003) lets put it to vote. If you follow Foxe's argument that this would be turned into a "Faith-Promoting" article, please go to the revert and ask if it reads as unfairly biased. Then come back here and ask if this sounds biased. Then make your call. BE BOLD!

Who agrees with an August 29 2003 revert,

Canadiandy: Yes.

173.180.110.164 (talk) 14:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

I say "No" to a restart. The only thing that does is arbitrarily throw out every edit for the last 7 years. You expect us to believe there have been NO useful edits in the LAST 7 YEARS? I can't support that. I'm on board for fixing the article, but to throw out every edit for the last 7 years is too far. It will be a lot smoother to simply take a single point, reach a consensus, and make the edit. I don't care if the article reads as biased or not at any given point in time. My goal is to get it to a point that it doesn't read as biased any more. No article is perfect, that's why we edit. As for Foxe statement that he is the only non-Mormon contributing here... that doesn't change Wikipedia policy. Non-Mormons need citable sources the same as Mormons do. Padillah (talk) 14:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Restart: NO ! Duke53 | ^Talk 16:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

B Fizz: No. For reference, here's a link to the article as it stood after the final edit on 23 Aug 2003. The article was being edited frequently at the time. It would make more sense to propose to use the revision after the final edit on 30 Aug 2003. However, rolling back to these revisions loses a lot of content, images (and their alt text!), and all citations. It would also render Finetooth's recent peer review of the article useless. According to WP guidelines, the article as it stands is much closer to Good Article status now than it was on 30 Aug 2003. ...comments? ~BFizz 18:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

"No" from myself as well. That revert would be too far back and would remove a lot of great items in the article. It would be in our best interest to approach the "POV" items one by one and have a discussion about them. This article needs some work, but shouldn't be reverted. --CABEGOD 00:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, BFizz. The Aug 30 article is just fine too. It even includes a reference and link to Brodie for those wanting that perspective. I do understand your concern regarding the article 'approaching' Good Article status, but I think the very reason it isn't (and very likely won't) is because of exactly what has changed, 1. It is much longer. 2 As it stands it is highly inflammatory and negatively cynical (as opposed to neutral) of Joseph Smith. Please reconsider, I know it would be a huge leap, but we can't kid ourselves that this article has become incredibly messy and reads more like an expose'.

Thanks for responding with respect and serious consideration.

So let's repose the question,

Who votes to revert to August 30, 2003?

I vote yes.

173.180.110.164 (talk) 01:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy