Talk:Joseph Smith

Polygamy and criticism of Smith

User:Weaponbb7 has written the following in his review of the article:

“ l would consider incorporating more of the Origin of Latter Day Saint polygamy as this seems to be minimized. Incorporate Criticism of Joseph Smith, Jr. into the prose. As these seem to have been minimized or left out entirely. ”

Should we consider introducing a "criticism" or "controversy" section into the article so that these key topics are not "minimized"? I personally do not see any main topics in the two articles mentioned that are not also duly treated in this article. Discuss ...comments? ~BFizz 21:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I think this could be a good idea so long as it doesn't overwhelm the rest of the article. This isn't an excuse to bash the guy - it's a place where we can deposit the criticisms and label them accordingly. This would force us to ease up on the rest of the article (which critics might not like) but would provide a specific section open to criticisms (which proponents might not like). It would make presenting a balanced article much easier. Padillah (talk) 12:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I oppose a section devoted to "criticism" or "controversy," which has the potential to be both judgmental and spark indefinite edit wars. Let the reader make his own decision as to what about Smith's life is "controversial."--John Foxe (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Ideally, critical commentary should appear in the text in the appropriate sections, and not be bundled together in a separate criticism section. Among other things, that ensures that criticism is seen in context rather than as some isolated "rant section" (cf. John Foxe's concerns about edit wars). WP:BLP doesn't make any specific suggestions along this line, but it does state "Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral". --PLUMBAGO 15:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we are talking about two different things. First, "criticisms" should appear where they are relevant throughout the article. There should not be a section which is a "repository" for facts that some people think are embarrassing about Smith. These supposedly embarrassing facts are no different than any other facts, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, and to make any distinction between the two types of facts is, IMHO, a violation of WP:NPOV

Second, the subject of "criticism" is an entirely different animal than "criticisms". While "criticisms" are just facts or alleged facts, "criticism" is a style of writing, whose counterpart is apologetics. I'm undecided as to whether we need a separate section outlining the history of Smith-related criticism and apologetics through the years. Such a section might address the concerns of editors who want to see such a section and might insist on one before the article achieves featured status, but it will be a challenge to make compact and yet meaningful, and I'm not totally convinced yet that it is necessary. In the main text, we already mention Thomas Sharp and the Expositor, which were contemporary with Smith, but we could consider briefly mentioning Eber Dudley Howe and the Spaulding theory, early apologists Orson Pratt and B.H. Roberts, modern evangelicals like the Tanners and Ed Decker, and modern apologists like FARMS. Whether or not this is a good idea, I think, will depend on the implementation. So we might want to start an experimental section and see how it looks. If it seems really out of place, or damages the quality of the article as a whole, we can remove it. COGDEN 18:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this distinction. I was under the impression we would have a summary of the Criticism of Joseph Smith Jr. article. Not just a dumping ground for anybody that wants to attack Smith. Having this summary will help the article by providing a logical place for mentioning apologetic arguments rather than try to shoehorn them into the article body. But it must be restricted to actual apologetic arguments. This will also allow the body of the article to be a little more positive owing to the fact that we can move the apologetic points to a section all of their own without sacrificing the article to do it. Padillah (talk) 19:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm opposed to summarizing the miserable Criticism of Joseph Smith Jr. article in this biography. As COGDEN has correctly said, There's no reason to have a section of "facts that some people think are embarrassing about Smith. These supposedly embarrassing facts are no different than any other facts, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, and to make any distinction between the two types of facts is, IMHO, a violation of WP:NPOV." Besides, the last thing we need to do at this article—which has just been criticized for being too pro-Mormon—is to make the body of the article "a little more positive."--John Foxe (talk) 19:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Then what do you propose we do with apologetics like the Tanners? Do we just try and find a place to mention them in the article? Do we ignore them in favor of the "Criticism..." article? And what becomes of the miserable "Criticism..." article? Will we ever get around to fixing it? Although, I understand not wanting to create a problem where none exists. Padillah (talk) 20:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Ignore the Tanners. Fix the "Criticism" article independently. This is a biography of Joseph Smith, and no section treating critics or apologists is necessary. Let Joseph Smith be simply who he was without anachronistically dragging promoters and detractors into his career. Start down road of trying to decide exactly who is what (Is Bushman an apologist or a detractor?), and the result will be nothing but trouble.--John Foxe (talk) 20:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to dismiss Weaponbb7's comments though, because for all we know those comments might reflect the first impression of a constituency of other editors. Other than a few superficial matters that have been at least partially remedied already, Weaponbb7's comments seem to be limited to the non-biographical sections, mainly the "Legacy" section, for which we haven't devoted as much attention here on the talk page. For the "life" section, and maybe the "distinctive views and teachings" section, it's hard to argue there is much, if any, bias there. But the "legacy" section was only recently added, and maybe it needs another look. Adding a "criticism and apologetics" section could very well be a bad and unworkable idea, but here's another brainstorm: maybe we could add some material about how non-Mormons demonized Smith, as a counterpoint to the material about how Mormons deified him. Also, if you aren't paying attention when you read the "legacy" section, you might mistakenly think the article is praising Smith. Maybe there are superficial changes in the style that we can make. COGDEN 00:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Revised "Impact" section

I went ahead and revised the "Impact" section a bit to include not just the Mormon view deifying Smith, but also a brief discussion of the controversies he stirred in New York/Pennsylvania, Ohio, Missouri, and Illinois. I think that is also part of his "impact". I know this is covered in detail elsewhere in the article, but maybe this would help silence the criticism that the "Impact" section is unbalanced. Comments or suggestions are welcome. COGDEN 00:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I've just took it upon myself to revert all of John Foxe and COGDens "revising" edits to this section, the reason being, the way they were shaping the section was completely out of order. It was full of a highly visible, blatantly obvious negative prose full of emotionally charged attacks such as "liar" and such. It was making Joseph smith out to be some kind of criminal and tyrant, massively overlooking every single positive aspect in his life and maximising anything which made him look bad. There is no way on this entire planet I'd ever accept that as being "NPOV". It was incredibly offensive. Routerone (talk) 08:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

•" It was making Joseph smith out to be some kind of criminal and tyrant..." You may be overlooking the fact that many (most?) people believe that Joseph Smith was 'some kind of criminal and a tyrant'. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 12:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Depending on the reader's preconceptions, I think the section you deleted could just as easily be interpreted as showing how unfairly Smith was treated by the people in his world. Smith himself said that the angel Moroni told him that his name would be had for "good and evil" throughout the world. Right now, the "impact" section only shows how his name was for "good" among Mormons. What's wrong with showing the other half of Moroni's prophecy? Isn't the controversy and intense hostility toward him at least half of his "impact"? COGDEN 09:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Expert reviewer needed

I absolutely agree with the Wikipedia editor who requests a review by "someone with more expertise on this subject" before this article gets a good article rating.

I don't know anything about Mormonism, but this article clearly contains material that hss been added by vandals in an attempt to make Mormons look like superstitious idiots. Huge parts of it are taken from a "South Park" episode specifically designed to mock Mormon beliefs.

I would ask knowledgable Mormons to edit this article, removing this insulting nonsense and presenting the actual beliefs of their faith. Mardiste (talk) 21:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

This article has been edited for several years by Wikipedians who run the gamut of Mormon and non-Mormon views. The article is also well sourced to the best scholarship. (If you're ignorant of Mormonism, how can you be certain that the article contains "insulting nonsense.")--John Foxe (talk) 22:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Smith's story does probably strike most modern readers as unbelievable. But it was not nearly so unbelievable to the less cynical and less naturalistic people of his day who were open to mystical and magical religious experience. In much the same way, if Jesus or Muhammad lived today, they'd probably be dismissed as kooks, and their followers, superstitious idiots. COGDEN 22:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Mardiste for your comments. They are fair and accurate in a sense. There are two sides to every coin and for religious topics, perspectives become many sided. It could be said by LDS that many would not recognize the story of Joseph Smith by reading this article. This article takes a particularly areligious approach to Joseph Smith and as such, misses a significant, if not the sole reason, for his place in history. It is excludes in its entirety the perspective of Joseph Smith himself and the LDS Church. If this same approach was taken on Luther, Calvin, Muhammad, or Jesus Christ....well it would never been written in the first place in such a way. You will not find this tone used in each of their articles. One does not get the impression of crazed, superstitious, mindless lemmings following an even more depraved idiot. One generally finds some allowance for telling the story of a religious person in a simple, factual approach. This is an example where that perspective has been omitted.

On the other hand, Wikipedia is areligious. Wikipedia is not interested in what advocates think or write. In pursuit of third party, "expert" opinion, editors attempt to portray a historical picture of the individual. Where advocates of the person have been drowned out, the tone of the article takes a decidedly negative pitch highlighting things or events that have no weight; balance is lost. When advocates, in number, have the upper hand, then consensus allows for a more positive tone or at least giving balance to those historical facts and events that have the most meaning. Most advocates/members to do not actively participate on this article; I seldom if ever edit it anymore and I know a great number of LDS who have chosen the same path I have. I have more success editing other articles.

This article is more of a shrill shadow portrayed of the man Joseph Smith. It is one out of many perspectives that can be drawn. It is accurate in a sense, but a reader would never gain a clear understanding of Joseph Smith or the religion he started by reading this article alone. --^StormRider 00:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

This article is a model of scholarly consensus and was recently (and IMHO, unfairly) criticized as too pro-Mormon. (Can shadows be shrill?)--John Foxe (talk) 09:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Good luck finding an expert reviewer. If you pick a follower of Smith as your "expert", then critics will be displeased; if a critic, then followers will be displeased. It's hard to find middle ground with someone who made such extraordinary claims as did Joseph Smith, Jr. But from the basis of good aritcle criteria I feel this article, while far from perfect, has come a long way in the years it has been edited. I didn't expect it to be easily or automatically granted GA status, but rather, to be reviewed and receive extra outside attention to help its slow but steady progress towards FA status. The accusation that "huge parts" of this article are taken from a South Park episode is baseless. Please point me to a specific paragraph that you consider to be "insulting nonsense". ...comments? ~BFizz 16:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Mardiste for speaking up. Some of us LDS have expressed the same concern, and it's nice to have it validated that it isn't merely a bias of ours since an outside voice sees it too.173.180.116.53 (talk) 16:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

Mardiste said he didn't "know anything about Mormonism," so I'm gratified he agrees with you rather than me.--John Foxe (talk) 16:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Alas, friend John, the shrillness of a shade depends upon the tone of its cry. The shadow is but a faint representation of the man. My objective was not made to offend or to be taken personally, but to share my opinion. The vast majority of LDS would not recognize this article as representative of Joseph Smith or his life. It does not surprise me that critics will continue to find problems with the article; for them the article should be limited to a few words: Joseph Smith was a fraud. Anything more than that is an affront to their sensibilities. --^StormRider 17:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't offended in the least, Storm. I just thought I'd note some prose headed towards a deeper "shade" of purple than usual.--John Foxe (talk) 17:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Though I honestly do enjoy your word play as you respond to each other, this conversation accomplishes virtually nothing until we get some concrete examples of what exactly we should be fixing to make this article fulfill the good article criteria. A few reviewers were bold enough to suggest specific areas for improvement, and they were improved. What else is lacking? ...comments? ~BFizz 19:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, B Fizz. As to some of the prior discussion, I disagree with the implied assumption that this article needs to somehow find a "middle ground" between hagiography and anti-Mormonism. Middle ground does exist (see Neilson & Givens, 2008, Joseph Smith Jr.: reappraisals after two centuries). However, NPOV is not about "middle ground"—it is about neutral ground. The issue of whether or not Joseph Smith was really and truly a prophet of God is irrelevant to Wikipedia. We'll leave that question to Sunday School. What we answer in this article is, what do the most respected and cited sources write about Joseph Smith, and what does a general audience most want to know about him? I think this article answers that question very well, and includes a very broad range of information about Smith, most of which is backed by the consensus of the academic community. The article also includes citations to authors with a broad range of perspectives including Mormon and non-Mormon perspectives.

But we don't include fringe views here, including some of Smith's descriptions of his own history and some of what is taught over the Mormon pulpit, except to the extent that they have historical or cultural significance. For example, we don't cite Smith's story of finding the golden plates because of some judgment that the story might be true (which is irrelevant). We cite the story because it is what initially made him regionally famous. We don't cite Smith's stories about the First Vision because we think that God and Jesus might have actually visited Joseph in the grove in 1820—we cite them in the "impact" section because long after his death, the vision became the most important element of Smith mythology (using that term in its purely academic sense). Many Mormon views about Smith, like it or not, are classed as "fringe" under Wikipedia policy. We can include some of them to the extent they are notable, to show Smith's significance to Mormonism. But because Wikipedia seeks to maintain a neutral and mainstream perspective, these views cannot have equal footing with consensus historical information about Smith. COGDEN 20:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm quite disappointed in the discourtesy shown Mardiste. It is clear that his statement, "I don't know anything about Mormonism" was simply meant as an open courtesy to help identify his POV. But some who did not agree with his POV, instead of listening and respecting his opinion have jumped to merely discredit him. Very poor form.173.180.116.53 (talk) 03:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

Mardiste claimed ignorance and then clearly demonstrated that ignorance by claiming this article had been based on a cartoon parody.--John Foxe (talk) 13:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm writing to extend a sincere apology to Mormons who were offended by my post. I swear to you on my honour that I did not know that the contents of this article accurately reflected the beliefs of the Church of Latter Day Saints and I am sincerely asking for your forgiveness. My previous knowledge of Mormonism was based solely on the South Park episode, and I thought the article was defamatory. It is not. I'm honestly sorry. Mardiste (talk) 23:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

And I am withdrawing my request for an external reviewer. Mardiste (talk) 23:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I swear, when I first read the article, the only thing I was absolutely poositive was made up was the thing about the "seeing stones". I'm honestly sorry for any offence. Mardiste (talk) 23:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Requested review from BYU religion professors

I've emailed some BYU professors and asked them to review the article according to Wikipedia policies and good article criteria. Part of the email was as follows:

“ The Joseph Smith, Jr. article at Wikipedia is undergoing review for "Good Article" status. Wikipedians (volunteer editors at Wikipedia) disagree about the neutrality of the article, some saying it is too pro-mormon, and some saying it is too anti-mormon.

Given your expertise on the subject, would you kindly consider reviewing the article and giving your input, anonymously or otherwise?

”

I also provided them with links and promised that if they choose to provide feedback through me that I will keep it anonymous unless they indicate otherwise. Perhaps one or more of them will be able to help us to improve the quality of the article and provide the "knowledgeable Mormon" viewpoint that has been requested. ...comments? ~BFizz 20:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

That was a good move. Thank you for taking the time to go the extra mile. --^StormRider 20:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

"That was a good move." Maybe, but it sure should be interesting. Even "knowledgeable Mormon(s)" will have to utilize reputable sources to back up their viewpoint. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 21:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

p.s., I also contacted a few theology experts of my acquaintance; the notion that they may give their opinion here anonymously may appeal to them. Cheers Duke53 | ^Talk 00:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd welcome the comments of anyone, especially those writing in the field. However, unless they are willing to come forward to identify themselves, their views have only the weight of their ability to persuade us, and they will not have the benefit of their credentials to back them. The most persuasive perspective would be from a professor who has a non-BYU PhD in some field of history, and who has published articles on Mormon history in peer reviewed fora. If it's just some guy with a physics degree who dabbles in Egyptology, then I'd take their opinion with a grain of salt. Another issue is that they may be an expert in their field, but they may not be an expert in Wikipedia neutrality policy. COGDEN 00:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

More eyeballs is rarely a bad thing. Thanks for contacting your theologian acquaintances, Duke. Interesting it will be, if anyone responds, that is. ...comments? ~BFizz 02:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I think I owe everyone a big apology for starting this thread. I swear to God, this is actually worse than the time I invited the two terrified subliterate 18-year-old Utah farmboy virgins (oops, I mean "Church Elders") into my house to discuss theology. I thought they would have at least had a basic knowledge of the books of the Old Testament. This is just really sad. Mardiste (talk) 22:32, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Mardiste, I'm quite disappointed by this post. Referring to a companionship of LDS Missionaries as you do above is uncalled for. I took your initial post on good will, but I am now confused by whatever point you are trying to make. Your attempts at suggesting you are a better individual because you knew the books of the Old Testament remind me of when Mark Twain was told by a friend “Before I die, I plan to make a pilgrimage to the Holy Land. I will climb to the top of Mount Sinai and read the Ten Commandments aloud.” Replied Twain, “Why don’t you stay home and keep them?” I'd rather side with those two Elders who were likely trying to live what is taught in the Bible to the best of their knowledge than with someone who knows it inside and out but still acts with rudeness and contempt for his neighbors.

173.180.116.53 (talk) 07:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

Religious Authority and Ritual

I have some concerns with the wording,

"He saw his teachings and the Church of Christ as a restoration of early Christian ideals that had been lost in a great apostasy. At first, the power of Smith's church rested mainly on religious experience and charismatic authority, with little sense of hierarchy."

Regardless of the sources these statements are highly debatable.

First, Smith did not see the Church of Christ as merely "a restoration of early Christian ideals" he saw it as a restoration of the actual early Church (thus the return of Peter, James and John, the senior apostles following Christ's death and resurrection, before the organization of the Church to restore Priesthood and presiding authority).

Second, the power of the Church did not rest on "charismatic authority" it rested on restored authority.

Yes, I know most don't believe that, but it would more accurately (and fairly) read;

"He saw his teachings and the Church of Christ as a restoration of the early Christian church that had been lost in a great apostasy. At first, the power of Smith's church rested mainly on religious experience and Smith's declared authority, with little sense of hierarchy."173.180.116.53 (talk) 16:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

I think your first point is well taken because it concerns a description of what Smith believed. Your second point concerns actual practice rather than belief, and there the current wording is adequately grounded in Quinn.--John Foxe (talk) 17:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your input John. As to the second point I'm confused. The way it reads to me is that in the early days (after the Church was organized) Joseph presided by appealing to his own charisma and not to the authority he stated he received from God. I don't deny many were drawn to his character (charisma) but I'm not sure it can be said absolutely that that is where the "power of the Church [rested]."

Perhaps the problem is with the term "Charismatic Authority" which is a confusing term (there is even confusion on the WP page discussing the term). Is there a better way this could be phrased so as not to confuse?

173.180.116.53 (talk) 22:49, 21 August 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

I tried to follow the Quinn reference and can't find an active link to his 1994 book on early Mormon heirarchy. Do you have a link? If not, how does he evidence the claim about a merely charismatic authority? 173.180.116.53 (talk) 23:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

Quinn's 1994 book is not online. But he basically writes that Joseph Smith did not begin to appeal to restored authority until 1835. Initially, it was all charismatic authority, which simply means that everybody believed there was something special about Smith that allowed him to have unique access to God. Before 1835, no Mormon ever heard of visits by angels to restore priesthood authority. They believed that Smith had authority because he was a prophet and a "choice seer", not because angels ordained him. COGDEN 05:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks COgden. Looking deeper though, it seems to me that Quinn's position is speculative at best. There is as much, if not more, evidence suggesting Smith acknowledged, and did appeal to, restored authority even before the organization of the Church. In June 1829 at Fayette, New York, Joseph Smith received (stated) as D&C 18:9,

"And now, Oliver Cowdery, I speak unto you, and also unto David Whitmer, by the way of commandment; for, behold, I command all men everywhere to repent, and I speak unto you, even as unto Paul mine apostle, for you are called even with that same calling with which he was called."

Further in April 1830 Joseph revealed (stated) as D&C 20:2-3;

"Which commandments were given to Joseph Smith, Jun., who was called of God, and ordained an apostle of Jesus Christ, to be the first elder of this church; And to Oliver Cowdery, who was also called of God, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to be the second elder of this church, and ordained under his hand;"

I don't expect anyone to take my side on this one, but it is only fair to remove the "Charismatic Authority" statement until we have better agreement. As I said, at best this one is debatable, and so it should be removed until the evidence is more reliable.

Respectfully,173.180.116.53 (talk) 00:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

This is a difference of opinion resolved by Wikipedia standards about Verifiability. According to the latter, "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" rather than self-published sources that are "promotional." Following that guideline, Quinn will always trump Joseph Smith. To argue that Quinn is incorrect, you need to cite a reliable, peer-reviewed secondary source that disputes Quinn's view.--John Foxe (talk) 09:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Another problem I see is that while John sees the article to be referring to the "power", or ability to draw people, of the church Anon116.53 sees the "power", or celestial and divine strength, of the church. The statement needs to be rephrased to eliminate that type of misreading. If one person can misread it that way others can too. Padillah (talk) 14:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Hope my edit eliminated that problem without creating others.--John Foxe (talk) 17:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi John,

Thanks for the change. I respect your point on relying solely on Joseph's words. My point in the Doctrine and Covenants reference wasn't based as evidence such that because he said it it is true. I was merely using them as evidence based on timing. The fact that such was taught by Smith as early as 1829 and again in 1830 (I doubt there is much dispute as to the timing of these teachings) conflict with the position that Smith relied solely on his charisma for authority.

Your improvement now reads;

"At first, authority within Smith's church rested largely on his own charismatic personality and religious experiences."

Would anyone have problems with it reading;

"At first, authority within Smith's church rested largely on his charismatic personality and his own stated claim to apostolic succession (D&C 20:2-3)."

All this seems to do is identify what is meant by the term "religious experiences." I think this accepts the fact that, whether or not one accepts Smith's claim to apostolic succession, he himself justified his role as presiding elder based on his claim to divine authority.

173.180.116.53 (talk) 06:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

I think that is much more lucid. He wasn't just a smiling happy person, he actually thought he was supposed to head the church. I don't think there's much argument to be had that Smith didn't position himself as head of the church, through prophetic visions, almost immediately. Padillah (talk) 12:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I think Canadiandy's wording is an improvement, and I've made the change in the article.--John Foxe (talk) 13:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Canadiandy, it's good to see you pointing out specific areas for improvement and proposing specific suggestions. I think you're getting the idea of how to get things done here at Wikipedia. With time, I think the article will become very accurate at satisfying all relevant viewpoints of Smith, critical and apologetic alike. ...comments? ~BFizz 16:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Smith did not make a claim to apostolic succession until about 1835, when the Doctrine and Covenants was revised. Thus, it is anachronistic to say that his authority was based on any claim to such succession in the earliest years. So John, I disagree with your change and I've changed it back.

Canadiandy, your reference to D&C 18:19 ("I speak unto you, even as unto Paul mine apostle, for you are called even with that same calling with which he was called.") actually supports the idea that in the early years, authority was charismatic. Paul was called as an disciple and apostle because he saw Jesus in a vision, which is a very charismatic type of calling. Moreover, this revelation was directed in part to David Whitmer. Whitmer never claimed to have been part of the May 1829 visit by John the Baptist, or the later (1831?) visit by Peter, James, and John. In June 1829 when the revelation was given, the church had not yet even been organized. Thus, David Whitmer's 1829 call as a disciple/apostle of Jesus was purely charismatic at that time. Regardless, Whitmer's authority could conceivably be far different from the nature of Smith's own calling as perceived by early Mormons, which is what the article text discusses.

As to D&C 20:2-3 (BOC version: "Which commandments were given to Joseph, who was called of God and ordained an apostle of Jesus Christ, an elder of this church...[Oliver] ordained under his hand), this ordination is referring to the ordination of Joseph and Oliver as church elders on April 6, 1830. This does not refer to any earlier ordination by John the Baptist, or obviously any later ordination by Peter, James, and John. Smith's authority did not originate from this ordination in 1830--Mormons believed he had priesthood authority well before that, as a result of his charismatic calling, independent of any apostolic succession which nobody knew about in 1830. Indeed, Smith's and Cowdery's ordination as elders would have little meaning to early Mormons if they didn't already have some pre-existing authority to legitimize this ordination and the formation of the church. This pre-existing authority was perceived as charismatic authority. Early Mormons believed that Smith had authority because he was called as a prophet through visions. Only years later did they hear the stories that established a form of apostolic succession. COGDEN 23:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I stand corrected.--John Foxe (talk) 10:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Wait, what?

"At first, authority within Smith's church rested largely on his own charismatic personality and religious experiences."

From our edits, the meaning of this sentence has evolved from talking about the authority of other people within the church to solely Smith's authority within it. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe Foxe (or COgden) sourced Quinn there talking about the former, not the latter.

The sentence should read "At first, Smith's authority within his church...". Or, if we're talking about other people's authority within his church, then how can their authority "rest on [Smith's] charismatic personality and religious experiences"? I'm running into either a superfluous sentence (wouldn't his authority come from the fact that it's "his" church?) or a non sequitur. ...comments? ~BFizz 14:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like a while ago there was an edit that introduced an inaccuracy, and I didn't notice it before. First, we're not talking about Smith's "charismatic personality." Rather, we are talking about his charismatic authority, which is something quite different. Religious charismatic authority is not really a "personality trait". In the Christian context, it usually relates to Christian charisma (gifts of the Spirit). In other words, as described in the Quinn reference, Smith claimed to have special visions and revelations through the spirit that set him apart as a "choice seer". In the earliest years, this was the basis of his perceived religious authority. Later, he elaborated additional authority mechanisms, including a form of apostolic succession. So I have changed the wording to read "At first, Smith's religious stature among Mormons was based on his charismatic authority derived from visions and revelations." COGDEN 19:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

COgden. I commend you for your knowledge on this stuff. I think the problem I am having is that the great majority of people reading the article will be confused by the term "Charismatic Authority (CA)" If by it you mean Joseph claimed authority based on visions or revelations and not physical succession (i.e. laying on of hands), that is debatable but I'll grant it may be the case. But if so that needs to be made plain for the Wikipedia readership. I still contend that leaving a confusing phrase like "Charismatic Authority" in there is not helpful towards a fair understanding of most Wikipedia readers.

Wikipedia describes "CA" as;

    "resting on devotion to the exceptional sanctity, heroism or exemplary character of an individual person, and of the normative patterns or order revealed or ordained by him." 

I don't think Smith taught that it was he revealing 'X' to the Saints, as much as it was what God revealed to him. Thus, God (Jesus Christ) is the source of the Charismatic Authority (or so Joseph appears to have recorded).

Wikipedia then goes on to say;

"Charismatic authority is one of three forms of authority laid out in Weber's tripartite classification of authority, the other two being traditional authority and rational-legal authority."

Translation here seems to be that the term itself is confusing even among the experts and even if used would need to be broken out according to its context. COgden, you seem to know what the intricacies of how the early authority unfolded, I wonder if you could come up with a better phrasing that is more clear (and hopefully shorter).

Sincere thanks,

173.180.106.108 (talk) 20:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

I don't care much about how you reword this, but I still hold that the term

"Highest exaltation would be achieved through "plural marriage""?

Another problem with wording here. Under theology of family it reads,

"Smith taught that the highest exaltation would be achieved through "plural marriage" (polygamy),[354] which was the ultimate manifestation of this New and Everlasting Covenant.[358] Plural marriage allowed an individual to transcend the angelic state and become a god[359] by gaining an "eternal increase" of posterity."

I've read through the reference to Foster and found nothing to suggest that the highest exaltation is exclusive to participants in plural marriage. She does infer that as celestial marriage brings the highest exaltation, then multiple celestial marriages would enhance or expand such. But this does not exclude non-participants in multiple marriage from the highest exaltation.

I suggest a correction to,

"Smith taught that the highest exaltation could be achieved through eternally sealed marriages (including plural marriages) performed by Priesthood authority,[354] which were the ultimate manifestation of this New and Everlasting Covenant.[358]These marriages allowed an individual to transcend the angelic state and become a god[359] by gaining an "eternal increase" of posterity."

173.180.116.53 (talk) 17:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

I agree the Lawrence Foster reference does not quite go as far as the article text, although there are other references that do. Your suggested language may also have support in other mainstream sources, but probably not in Foster. His view was that plural marriage was a "particularly exalted" form of celestial marriage. Though he did not quite say that plural marriage results in a higher exaltation, he came very close to saying that. Foster certainly did not say that one could achieve the highest exaltation through monogamous celestial marriages. I have some thoughts on how to change the language in the article, and some possible additional sources to use, but I don't have time to add them now. If it turns out that the prominent sources disagree, we can deal with that. COGDEN 06:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks COgden. For the prominent sources following, the issue here is that the text seems to imply that Smith taught that the highest exaltation available is exclusive to plural marriage participants. This is not accurate as the highest exaltation has always been taught to be available to those marrying one wife as well. Whether or not plural marriage is "particularly exalted" (how much higher can the highest exaltation go?) or was taught as such is a bit of a fringe issue when it is already stated clearly that plural marriage could lead to the highest exaltation. Especially given the fact we are looking to shorten this article up.

173.180.116.53 (talk) 17:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

COgden, upon further reading, all I could find in which Foster says plural marriage is a higher exaltation revolves around the logic (not necessarily mine) that since the main work of exalted beings will be the increase of posterity, they will be more efficacious with multiple spouses. Even if this assumption is true it still does not alter the reality that there does not seem to be sufficient evidence that Smith taught specifically that the higher exaltation is exclusive to only those who enter into plural marriage. 173.180.116.53 (talk) 17:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

When we refer to "higher exaltation", we are not necessarily talking about the highest of the three "degrees" of the Celestial Kingdom, which I think you are referring to. Unlike your entrance into a Kingdom, or your merit of a "degree" within that Kingdom, Smith did not see exaltation as something you "arrive at". Exaltation was a gradual process achieved by increasing your posterity in the afterlife. The greater your kingdom of heavenly posterity, the higher your exaltation. Foster's point is only that those who entered polygamy would have a higher exaltation than those who did not. It's hard to dispute Foster's conclusion, because Smith and Young encouraged Mormons to enter into the practice on those grounds. It's not that monogamists were "excluded" from anything. They still got their exaltation, but their exaltation would always be in second place behind that of the polygamists because their kingdom would grow more slowly. COGDEN 23:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't argue with what Joseph or Brigham may have said to those being encouraged (called?) to enter into plural marriages. But I still don't see any exclusionary evidence. I just don't think Foster's point warrants the wording as it stands (i.e. giving the impression that Joseph taught that non-polygamists could not achieve the highest of exaltation). It's a horrible analogy but I think of two people invited to a feast (one skinny, the other very large by weight). I don't question that one might enjoy the feast more, but the reality stands that both will be "fully" blessed. I see nothing in what Smith taught collectively to dispute this position. I'm not asking that Smith's teachings be ignored, just that they be used in a context which is not confusing or unintentionally misleading. Smith never taught that only polygamists would achieve the "highest exaltation." You could argue that he taught they would be more effective or satisfied within their exalted state, if so that is the way it should read in the article.

i.e. "Smith taught that based on the expanded celestial family structure those accepting polygamy would realize even greater (joy/efficacy/success/blessings) as exalted beings."

That seems to be what Foster and you are saying, so is there anything wrong with saying something like that?

It is just a start, and I don't say I even agree with it, (something about the nature of an infinite eternity, what is infinity times 3, and my feeling that family design is not a numbers game or a race seems to this post-polygamy LDS guy to make me feel quite comfortable with one celestial mortgage) but it is still better (IMHO) than it stands now.

173.180.106.108 (talk) 21:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy