Talk:Joseph Smith

Joseph Smith as King

"Though Smith was crowned king, Jesus would periodically appear during the Millennium as the ultimate ruler. Following a thousand years of peace, Judgment Day would be followed by a final resurrection, when all humanity would be assigned to one of three heavenly kingdoms." THis says Joseph Smith will rein as King. This has no reference, I am LDS and have never heard of this in my life... I want badly to delete it, May I? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuel Clayton (talk • contribs) 01:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I've added a citation to Bushman, Samuel. All the best, John Foxe (talk) 09:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I would like to see more primary sources on this subject, quotes commonly accessible show differently. "For the Lord shall be in their midst, and he will be their king and lawgiver."- Joseph Smith, D & C 45:59 Perhaps Bushman is referring to this statement, but nowhere can I locate source stating Smith will be king: " Christ and the ressurected saints will reign over the earth during the thousand years. They will not probably dwell upon the earth, but will visit it when they please or when it is necessary to govern it."- Joseph Smith, Teachings, p. 268 I have found a number of such inconsistencies throughout the article and I cannot fix them all on my own. Please take the time to reference primary sources in addition to secondary sources ( a biography is not a primary source). I recognize the bias on both sides, but this is my religion and I believe a balance of both kinds of sources would help this article's neutrality immensely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuel Clayton (talk • contribs) 03:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia privileges authoritative secondary sources over primary ones. Although it sounds strange to anyone who's done serious writing, Bushman and Brodie, as peer-reviewed secondary sources, trump Joseph Smith.--John Foxe (talk) 10:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not that Smith would be king. He already was the Millennial king, as the Council of Fifty had ordained him to that position. There are very good primary sources for that (e.g., William Clayton's journals and statements by many who were there), but we don't even really need to discuss them because I don't think the issue is controversial among mainstream Mormon and non-Mormon scholars. COGDEN 20:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

If Smith had presumed to be king of the United States, he'd have had to compete with this guy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Not king of the United States. He was king of a shadow world government that would soon serve as the political institution by which Jesus governed the earth during the Millennium. Smith is not the only religious leader of his era who thought that there would be a one-world theocratic government during the Millennium. But he was the only one who had a concrete plan to make it happen. COGDEN 00:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, a shadow world government. Now known as the Trilateral Commission, yes? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't that kind of creepy shadow government that is the subject of conspiracy theory. They just wanted to organize the "Kingdom of God" so that it could take over when the nations of the world were destroyed by the impending world war that was to proceed the Millennium. COGDEN 08:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Tweak to First Paragraph (Seer Stones)

The first paragraph has the following sentence.

Professing a God-given ability to see visions while peering at seer stones, Smith said he used this ability to translate the writing on the plates from their unknown language into English

The terms 'peering' and 'professing' seem unclear or awkward. I thought he was looking at the reflection in the translation and so 'peering at' might even be incorrect. And 'professing' might be questionable, not that Joseph was hiding the fact, but that word seems to connote an orchestrated effort to publicize his sacred gift, which I have seen no evidence of. 'Stating,' or 'acknowledging,' would be better. Also, as this information is available later in the article, it makes sense to shorten it up a bit.

As a starting point, how about,

Through the use of "seer stones," Smith claimed he used his God-given ability to translate the unknown language on the plates into English.

Seems a little more succinct.

Canadiandy1 (talk) 03:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

Good suggestion. His talent for divining with seer stones was established before he started translating, and is important in itself apart from just translating. So I'd modify your suggestion slightly to: "Smith claimed he used his God-given ability to divine with seer stones to translate the unknown language on the plates into English." COGDEN 04:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

These suggestions have the right idea, but both have awkwardness to them as well.

Through the use of seer stones, Smith claimed... - Smith did not need seer stones in order to make claims; this sentence structure is a little unclear.

Smith claimed he used his God-given ability to divine with seer stones to translate... - what is the (claimed) God-given ability? To divine with seer stones. But this sentence structure makes that a bit ambiguous.

I would prefer sticking with phraseology similar to Smith's own claim for the summary: Smith claimed that, "by the gift and power of God", he translated the unknown language on the plates into English. It doesn't hurt terribly to leave the seer stone(s) detail to the article body. ...comments? ~BFizz 06:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm good with that BFizz. I like COgden's suggestion but don't like the term 'divine' as a verb. Makes me think of water divining. I know it has common usage, but semantically I think it has a more mystical allusion.

I would support your proposal;

Smith claimed that, "by the gift and power of God", he translated the unknown language on the plates into English.

Especially given that the process is broken out in detail later on even to the point of the hat, seer stones, and processes he may have followed.

Canadiandy1 (talk) 23:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

I don't know if I should start this in a new section, but in the first paragraph it also states,

"[He] organized what he said was a restoration of the early Christian church based on this book and his interpretation of the Bible."

Has there been discussion on this one before? My understanding is that Joseph Smith did not base the restoration of the Church on these restored scriptures, but on a foundation of Priesthood authority founded in Jesus Christ (i.e. Jesus Christ being the chief cornerstone). I know this may sound picky, but as it reads now it sounds like Joseph read about Christ's Church in these "restored" scriptures and then chose to organize a Church. Which kind of misses his teaching that he acted under the direction of Christ in doing what he did. While most Church members see the restoration of these scriptures as a precursor to the restoration, it would likely be better written,

"[He] organized what he said was a restoration of the early Christian church as was found in this book and his interpretation of the Bible."

or for brevity,

"[He] organized a "restoration" of the early Christian church as was found in this book and his interpretation of the Bible."Canadiandy1 (talk) 23:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

I've been bold and eliminated the phrases Canadiandy1 dislikes. I figure it was easiest for me to do because no one who's been around here for any length of time can accuse me of being pro-Mormon.--John Foxe (talk) 00:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I am satisfied with Foxe's edit, though the resultant sentence could probably be further improved. ...comments? ~BFizz 03:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree Foxe's edits are an improvement.COGDEN 04:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks John. Thumbs up!Canadiandy1 (talk) 06:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

I'm gratified the cuts have been viewed as improvements.--John Foxe (talk) 09:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Smith was not assassinated

I discussed this at Talk:List of assassinated American politicians but apparently it must be discussed here as well. Smith's death was more of a shootout than an assassination ... he was armed and fired shots during the altercation. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 00:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

It can still be an assassination if the victim attempts to defend himself, no? But more importantly, do reliable sources call it an assassination? alanyst ^/talk/ 00:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't heard it called an "assassination" before. It seemed more like a "lynch mob" situation. I might argue more about the term "politician", though. Yes, he ran for President (sort of), but so did Pat Paulsen. And I'm not sure being killed by an angry mob counts as "assassination". Was that character in Romania "assassinated" when he and his wife were put at the opposite end of a firing squad? Or Mussolini, likewise? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Hence the implied suggestion that we let the reliable sources guide our terminology, rather than a debate with undertones about whether he was a victim or meeting a well-deserved end. alanyst ^/talk/ 01:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

This word from the Oxford English Dictionary: "the taking the life of any one by treacherous violence, esp. by a hired emissary, or one who has taken upon him to execute the deed."--John Foxe (talk) 01:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Huh? First, the term assassinated is not even in this article (unless I missed it somewhere). The neutral term 'killed' is used in both instances I saw and should, I feel, be left as is. LDS would prefer the term 'martyred' or 'murdered' but I can't see any argument on either side that he wasn't 'killed.' As to the fact he shot back, I am left to ask what the point of that has to do with anything. Some critics use it to paint Joseph in a poor light.

If I was in prison wrongfully, was aware of a government or mob conspiracy to take my life, and then had a mob of 100 vigilantes (makes them sound quite cowardly to me) storm my jail cell and didn't take up arms to defend my friends and safety, I'd be called a coward. As it turns out, he seems an amazing mix of noble, astute, and prudent. Love him, or hate him, he was no coward.

Canadiandy1 (talk) 01:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

Canadiandy1 says: "Love him, or hate him, he was no coward".

•... he met Emma Hale and, on January 18, 1827, eloped with her because her parents disapproved of the match.

• Soon after Smith reportedly performed an exorcism in Colesville, he was again tried as a disorderly person but was acquitted. Even so, Smith and Cowdery had to flee Colesville to escape a gathering mob.

• After a warrant was issued for Smith's arrest on a charge of banking fraud, Smith and Rigdon fled Kirtland for Missouri on the night of January 12, 1838.

• When Lilburn Boggs, the Governor of Missouri, was shot by an unknown assailant on May 6, 1842, many suspected Smith's involvement because of rumors that Smith had predicted his assassination. Evidence suggests that the shooter was Porter Rockwell, a former Danite and one of Smith's bodyguards. Smith went into hiding, but he ultimately avoided extradition to Missouri because any involvement in the crime would have occurred in Illinois.

• After instructing his clerk to hide or destroy the minutes of the Council of Fifty and ordering the Anointed Quorum to burn their temple garments, Smith fled across the Mississippi River.

Yeah, he was a very brave man. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 04:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

He was a world-class flee-er. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

We understand you hate him. You're belaboring your point. Reminds me of the Longfellow lyric to "I Heard the Bells on Christmas Day," that reads, "For Hate is strong/And mocks the song/of Peace on Earth, good will to men." And I'm sure it is easy for you to judge him as you have probably also endured being poisoned, beaten, tarred, unjustly imprisoned in horrible conditions for months, had six children die in infancy and been sentenced to die by firing squad. Or at least maybe you've watched some movies about such occurrences.

Canadiandy1 (talk) 06:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

We ? Do you have a mouse in your pocket ?

Hate him ? Fairly difficult to hate some guy that's been dead for 166 years.

Judge him ? I'd say that I'm judging his legacy, which obviously includes cowardice.

You came here and offered the (unsolicited) opinion that he was 'no coward'; in about two minutes I came up with five instances where Smith did the old 'cut & run'. I was making no statements about his character ... only that he hadn't been assassinated. If you continue to make those type statements be ready to have them challenged. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 08:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's all have a cup o' tea and get back to the topic at hand. For all the bluster Canadiandy does have a valid point in that "kill" seems to sum it up rather nicely. Is there any problem with leaving it "killed"? - User:Padillah signed by B Fizz since Padillah forgot

Duke, and everyone, WP:NOTFORUM. I think we all agree that "kill" works just fine. "Murder" would also be fine, imho. Whether Smith should be included in List of assassinated American politicians should be discussed there. ...comments? ~BFizz 14:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Ya think ? So did I, but User: Routerone wanted it discussed here also. He didn't bother discussing it here, but wanted it to be discussed ! Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 15:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I've added this article back to Category:Lynching deaths in Illinois, though the category itself is rather small and possibly due for deletion. ...comments? ~BFizz 00:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Duke53 deserves a public apology. I made a sarcastic comment which thankfully Tedder reverted. From my view Duke53 has played by the rules on this discussion and I did not. He did not deserve my immature retort. I thought I had gotten over being petty over this issue and apologize to everyone for bringing down the decorum of the discussion. I have been treated with great courtesy over the last couple months by everyone here, and I am ashamed to have to admit to having acted so poorly, especially after having been treated so fairly.

Sincerely,

Canadiandy1 (talk) 03:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

"Unknown language" or "Reformed Egyptian"

Having just noticed there, an unregistered contributor altered the lead paragraph and changed the description of the Language of the plates from "unknown language" to "reformed Egyptian". Immediately another anonymous editor then reverted this, only for Duke53 to revert again and entrench the disputed non-consensus modification to the page.

I do believe this ought to be discussed properly to reach an agreement. Many LDS scholars dispute that "reformed egyptian" was merely an adjective used to describe an "unknown language" than an actual subject title of a language in total. To explain, it is likely to have been used to describe a somewhat altered and unique variant of Egyptian, rather than be a "language in itself". This can easily be interpreted in either way.

Thus its worth noting that sticking "reformed egyptian" in the article as a "noun" can be saw very easily as a Point of View addition. The truth being we dont actually know what this language is, it is as the article should say an "unknown language", and its unfair to try and place it down to being anything else. Routerone (See here!) 11:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Calling it "Reformed Egyptian" only serves as a POV way to validate the language and the claim. Padillah (talk) 12:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a big difference either way. "unknown language" is fine in the lede; so if "reformed Egyptian" causes strife, let's stick with the former. It should certainly not be "Reformed Egyptian" with a capital R, but the E in "Egyptian", when referring to the Egyptian language, should always be capitalized. ...comments? ~BFizz 18:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Moroni makes it clear that "reformed Egyptian" is the name which the Nephites have given to a script based upon Egyptian characters, and modified over the course of a thousand years (See Mormon 9:32). [1] Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 18:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Poor form to go ahead and re-revert when it's still being discussed, Duke53. Please respect the Bold-Revert-Discuss process by self-reverting until there is a clear consensus for your preferred version. Routerone brought this issue here in good faith and it's not right for you to circumvent that. alanyst ^/talk/ 19:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah ... I was BOLD and reverted an unexplained edit by an anonymous editor; Routerone reverted that with no 'discussion' (after a single comment he made on the article talk page) ... so I agree: he used poor form. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 19:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

p.s. It's good to see that you remain so interested in me and my editing here at WP. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 19:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

There was no discussion at all, just back-and-forth reverting (including once by you), until Routerone brought up his reversion on this page and asked for input. I am mystified how you can classify his comment as "no discussion". And in spite of the ensuing discussion, which has been largely in support of the "unknown language" phrasing, you simply gave your take on it and immediately re-imposed your reversion. On what basis did you decide it was okay to ignore the opinions of other editors here? You are not working collaboratively here, and I am asking you civilly to self-revert and show more willingness to work with others instead of against them. alanyst ^/talk/ 19:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC) P.S. - I have taken the liberty of correcting an unclosed italic tag in your post above so it does not affect everyone else's posts below.

• A few definitions of discussion:

•A conversation is communication between multiple people

•A series of exchanges among at least two participants

• ... speak with others about (something); talk (something) over in detail

So, you can see that he didn't 'discuss' anything, just reverted my edit. Cheers. 20:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

p.s. Did you notice that I cited a source for calling it reformed Egyptian  ? Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 20:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Meh. He invited discussion and explained his reasoning. You're arguing a semantic technicality when the meaning is clear. You make it very hard to engage in good faith discussion with you. I'm done with this meta-conversation. alanyst ^/talk/ 20:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Note to self: 'inviting discussion' now = 'discussion'. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 20:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

p.s. Did you notice that I cited a source for calling it reformed Egyptian  ? Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 20:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Back on topic: I prefer the "unknown language" phrasing because calling it "reformed Egyptian" without qualification in the lede suggests to the typical reader that it's a common name or label for a known language, even with careful capitalization. The former phrase is less confusing in my opinion. alanyst ^/talk/ 19:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I prefer "unknown language" as well. Reformed Egyptian is indeed an unknown language, and I think it's more important to convey Smith's idea that the language was "unknown" or "lost" (and thus could not be translated except through divine power), rather than that the language had some tenuous connection to Egyptian hieroglyphics. COGDEN 22:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Did Joseph Smith know the language he was “translating”? A person cannot effectively “translate” a language one does not know. If he did not know the language, then even Joseph Smith was confused by the mystical process, because the process would be better described as receiving a dictation of something translated by a mysterious entity. My proposal:

During the late 1820s he became the leader of a small group of followers who believed that an angel had given him a book of golden plates written in a lost language described as “reformed Egyptian” and containing a religious history of ancient American peoples. Smith said that via supernatural means he had “translated” the writing on the plates into Biblical King James styled English. In 1830, he published the translation as the Book of Mormon and organized what he said was a restoration of the early Christian church.

I predict a fight over placing quotation marks around “translated”. If the quotation marks are removed, then editors would be with reason to add excessive verbiage explaining the oddities of the claim to translation. With the quotation marks the careful reader might realize there is more to look into if desired without distracting for the main summary that the paragraph is.Mormography (talk) 15:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, as the resident never-been-a-Mormon, I think it best to leave the lede alone. Let the interested reader read on. One thing I've learned about opening the proverbial can of worms here at Wikipedia is that once the can's been opened, it's tough to coax the worms back in, and they can wriggle off in the most frustrating directions. Besides, I'm an opponent of "sneer quotes" in formal writing ("gay liberation," "patriotic shrine," "religious conversion," etc.)--John Foxe (talk) 18:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with BFizz that I do not see a big difference either way, but disagree with BFizz’s reasoning that the first edit is preferred to the second when there is a disagreement. I have not heard a valid reason as to why both should not be included as I propose. All I have read is agruments to not edit the lead to avoid further disagreement, ultimately favoring one side of the disagreement.

Was Joseph Smith fluent in reformed Egyptian? This is something I have asked Mormon’s, but never get an answer to. If Joseph Smith was not fluent in the unknown language he says he translated, then the lead is very misleading (no-pun intended) to the reader as new-to-the-subject.

I like that expression sneer quotes. Of course because John Foxe quoted sneer quotes doesn’t mean he was necessarily sneering someone else. In formal writing sneer quotes are often replaced with the phrase so called in front of the item otherwise sneer quoted. Whether sarcasm or neutral point of view is intended with the phrase or the quotes depends almost entirely on the infliction of voice or known position of the author. However, the fact the technique is being invoked suggest to the reader there exist a disagreement in proper phrasing.

If not the lead, then it appears there is agreement that portions below may need some help. End of second to last paragraph in Early Years proposal:

This time, he said, he retrieved the plates and placed them in a locked chest. Smith said the metallic plates were written in a lost language described as reformed Egyptian and contained the religious record of indigenous Americans. The writing on the plates is claimed by faithful to have been translated via supernatural means into Biblical King James styled English. According to Smith, the angel commanded him not to show the plates to anyone, though he claimed he was later allowed to show them to a select few.Mormography (talk) 21:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Quotes are unnecessary because the article says that Smith "said" he translated the plates. Nothing more is needed. COGDEN 04:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

But yet you felt it necessary to quote the word said, interesting. I can understand saying quotes in the article are unnecessarily, but it is a hasty jump to say nothing more needed.Mormography (talk) 22:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Mormography. "...yet you felt it necessary..." ", interesting" "hasty jump". I'm sensing sarcasm. I don't agree with COgden on many points, but if you are implying he is pushing some pro-Joseph agenda, I think you are greatly mistaken. I'm not sticking up for him, but I will stick up for unfair treatment here. No hard feelings, I made the same newcomer mistakes (and still do) earlier on. 173.180.120.36 (talk) 04:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

It is true. Smith did say that he translated the plates. He said he did it (quote Smith) "by the gift and power of God". The proposed sentence about "claimed by faithful..." seems sketchy, though correct. I'd say stick with what Smith said/claimed. ...comments? ~BFizz 01:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

In this case, I think it's true that nothing more is needed than that Smith "said" he translated the plates. To my knowledge, Smith never claimed that he didn't understand Reformed Egyptian. In fact, he said he spent the first few months of his translating work trying to decipher the meaning of individual characters which he said he copied from the plates. When Oliver Cowdery tried to do his own translation through the medium of his dowsing rod, Smith's revelation chided him for expecting that the translation would just come to him without any mental effort of his own.

Plus, even if we assume (as Smith apparently later told some of his friends and family) that Smith's translation was a purely mechanical process of reading sentences in the stone, I disagree that this mechanical process can't be called translation. Computers can translate by a mechanical process, without understanding what they are translating. COGDEN 01:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I am sympathetic to John Foxe’s position of leaving the lead be following the keep it simple principle and avoiding arousing the uninterested reader’s interest. Whether or not a mechanical process might be called translation is an interesting digression (see Chinese Room). If a computer translates this entry then clearly I did not, but rather I had the computer translated it. Suppose someone claimed they rode a horse to work every day to describe operating a motorized wheeled vehicle to work, of course a little explanation would be warranted if not quotes. Anyways the mere fact that COgden had to go to such lengths to explain his position clearly shows that more is needed.

Whoever edited the Golden Plates entry obviously understood all this because they quoted “translated” and added the detail to explain in the second to last paragraph of the Translating the plates section. If that is good enough for the Golden Plates article then it is good enough for this one. Also, has that article mentions, Grant Palmer’s observation indicates that even Joseph Smith thought the translation should have been the same very time, indicating it was not him translating.Mormography (talk) 15:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I understand that you want to make a distinction between what is normally called translation and whatever Joseph Smith was doing, but I can't figure out how say, changing "Joseph Smith translated" to "the translation process occurred" does anything but make the sentence a passive (and therefore weaker). Why not try to come up with a short sentence explaining how the word "translation" is being used in the article? That way the term won't need to be written around or explained anywhere else.--John Foxe (talk) 18:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I did, see above, but then I realized as I stated in the edit summaries, the translation discussion did not fit well there. The truth is no one knows how the word is being used. The Golden Plates article does the best job of explaining and its treatment should probably just be copied and paste here. Fact is the passive voice in these sentences is the strongest way to uphold the Wikipedia philosophy of NPOV. As I stated in the summaries, that is what is accomplished, NPOV, if that is important.Mormography (talk) 01:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

In the end, the article does do a good job of describing what Smith meant when he said he translated the plates. However, that full story does not belong in the lede, where we have to very briefly summarize the entirety of Smith's life. It's not wrong to say that Smith said he translated the plates. And we can't say that Smith misunderstood the word "translation", because if Smith did, then every scholar who writes about Smith also misunderstands the word, because they also use that word to describe what Smith says he did.

Also, lets not look to golden plates for guidance. Because this is a more developed and higher-quality article, I think guidance should flow in the opposite direction. COGDEN 22:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

In the end, the Golden Plates article does an outstanding job of describing what Smith meant when he said he translated the plates. However, we have moved on from the lead discussion. It's not wrong to quote translated the plates. We can say that Smith misunderstood the word "translation" and just because many scholars repeated what Smith called translation does not mean those authors misunderstand the word. Also, lets not cop out that the Golden Plates is inferior when multiple editors are now know to agree with it.Mormography (talk) 01:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

If we are just saying that Smith said he was translating, there's no reason why we need to play games over the language. The most neutral way to present the fact that Smith said that the angel told him to translate is to write that "Smith said the angel told him to translate."

I also think that it is fully neutral, and fully consistent with the tradition of both Mormon and non-Mormon scholars in this field, to refer to Smith's work as "the translation" when it's clear from the context that we're referring to what Smith called his work. Within the critical literature, Smith's dictated manuscript is always called "the translation" because that's the most convenient name for it, it's what Smith called it, and the reader is already fully aware that there is a dispute about the translation's authenticity. Scholars call Smith's work a translation in the same sense that they refer to "seer stones", even though only Mormons and mystics believe such stones actually contain the powers of seership, or they refer to "practicing magic" even though they don't believe in magic. It is clear that the words translation, seer, and magic are used with built-in critical distance. COGDEN 07:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

This discussion has been a bit tl;dr for me to keep up with, but I generally agree with COgden's recent edit with its accompanying edit summary. ...comments? ~BFizz 16:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I am a little confused the COgden. What you wrote agrees with what I have been suggesting. I have argued "the translation" in favor of "his translation".Mormography (talk) 23:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I guess we agree then. I also agree with the change from "his translation" to "the translation". COGDEN 00:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

(Needless to say?) ditto. ...comments? ~BFizz 14:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Minor edits

The article reads that;

"Smith's followers revere him and regard his revelations as scripture, while he has sometimes been demonized by critics."

I know it's picky, but the grammar sounds wrong or disjointed to me. It just sounds awkward. Not sure, but maybe the word 'while' is in the wrong place.

Could it not simply read,

"Smith has been revered by his followers and demonized by several (many?) critics"

or

"While Smith's followers revered him as an inspired revelator, he was demonized by many critics."

I'm not arguing a POV here, simply grammar.

204.174.31.155 (talk) 03:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

Another minor edit. Should this be in a new section? The article reads,

"Smith's death led to schisms in the Latter Day Saint movement."

Isn't the 'Latter Day Saint Movement" a result of the schism?

Should it not simply read,

"Smith's death led to a religious schism in the Church."

(Note, I have purposefully used the term 'the Church' because, while it will be understood by the LDS as referencing The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, at the same time it does not exclude the beliefs that others of the "Latter-Day Saint movement" have that the LDS faith broke from them.) Specific yet neutral. Short yet informative. Sassy but not too pretentious. Bold but not overbearing. Like a fine non-alcoholic wine.

Canadiandy1 (talk) 04:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

I like the first edit. As to the second edit, the Latter Day Saint movement did not begin with the 1844 succession crisis. The term fairly describes the religion as a whole, and all of its factions, from the late 1820s onward. COGDEN 07:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

However, it's also fair to say that the "schism" happened in "the church", since within that time frame, it was the only one in the "movement". I agree that it's rather odd to call a single church a movement. Also, "schism" is a funny word if you think about it too much. Regarding the first edit: I like the "While Smith's followers..." version. The "Smith has been..." version is undesirably weak passive sentence structure. ...comments? ~BFizz 14:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I eliminated the "demonized" phrase because it's not elaborated on in that paragraph and tweaked the wording to eliminate the "while," which as Canadiandy has said, is grammatically incorrect. ("Although" would have been better, but shortening the sentence is best.) I've also modified the "schism" sentence to eliminate "LDS Movement."--John Foxe (talk) 15:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, John, COgden, and BFizz, for your input, attention and improvements here.

173.180.103.98 (talk) 04:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

Edit in Ethics and Morality

This section seems extremely short and vague to have it be included. I know latter-day saints have much stricter of a moral code than this. On February 9, 1831 Smith dictated a very long and detailed revelation now known as "the law". This was a very basic summary of the ten commandments. He also installed the law of consecration a form of communalism, because it was considered unethical for one person to hold more property than another thus "the whole world lies in sin." He also believed science and religion agreed with one another. In this respect, certain aspects of the religion are similar to Baha'i Faith, and some Baha'ists regard him as a seer (but not a prophet). This because they believe one of his revelations foresees the occurrence of Bahá'u'lláh's proclamation as a Manifestation of God. Just type "Baha'i LDS" into google to find out. As for this:

"For instance, the Book of Mormon approved the killing of a man and appropriation of his property because the killer had been moved by the Holy Spirit. Smith believed he might occasionally violate laws and ethical norms in order to serve what he perceived as a higher religious purpose."

If this is referring to Nephi killing Laban, the assessment is simply inaccurate, because Nephi had the right to do so according to the law of moses; Laban had sought to kill him and his brothers previously. Usually if the Holy Ghost prompts someone under these circumstances, it is generally due to lack of knowledge. For someone not lds this can be viewed as rather peculiar.--Samuel Clayton (talk) 04:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I think I agree with you, Samuel Clayton. While the points made in the section may be valid, they are not, I feel, unique or important enough to warrant special treatment.

For example,

"Smith believed he might occasionally violate laws and ethical norms in order to serve what he perceived as a higher religious purpose."

Not a very unique statement. Wouldn't most people accept this ethic, that is that the direct will of God trumps a man-made law. Isn't that what Daniel got thrown in the lion's den over? And would anyone be surprised to learn that a man who claimed personal revelation from God would also place God's will higher than all others? Wouldn't that be a given? I think the only unique event of note was when it worked out the other way, when God forbade Joseph to show the manuscript of the some of the plate translations, and he then persisted to request permission to share them. And even then, he only did so after receiving permission (albeit qualified with a serious caution).

If we're looking for a chance to shorten this up, here's a good place to start. Drop the section but relocate the information on the Word of Wisdom and the Law of Consecration somewhere else.

173.180.103.183 (talk) 08:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy