Talk:Joseph Smith

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

I do agree that the Word of Wisdom and rule of law paragraphs are a little bit shoehorned under the existing heading. However, I don't agree with getting rid of a discussion about Smith's views on the rule of law. Smith's view on this subject is a very complex and non-traditional one, and it says a lot about his character, and explains why sometimes he thought God's law was supreme, while other times he thought human law trumped God's law. But it does need some secondary sources, so I'm not happy with it in its current state. It's possible that this rule of law material can be moved to the preceding "race, government, and public policy" section.

I'm not sure where to put the Word of Wisdom material. It doesn't really belong in any of the other sections. The Word of Wisdom is about ethics, not theology, ritual, history/eschatology, government, or authority.

I also don't think the Law of Consecration/United Order topic belongs in the context of Smith's views of the rule of law. Smith always situated the United Order within the existing legal framework. It was a contractual communism. Moreover, it is already discussed in the "religious authority and ritual" section. COGDEN 23:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I have taken a stab at revising this section. I introduced a few new secondary sources, and I think it's clearer now what this section is about. Any comments? COGDEN 02:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, COGDEN. I appreciate your careful improvements.--John Foxe (talk) 20:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I like some of the changes. I made a small edit; I removed the word 'yet' as it seemed to make it read more as a gotcha statement, though doubtless undesigned.

Canadiandy1 (talk) 04:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

Exaltation through plural marriage?

There is one aspect of this article that needs remodeling in my opinion. It is said in the section of theology of the family that Smith taught that plural marriage was the ultimate manifestation of the New and Everlasting Covenant. I have referenced the given source, and found it to be a clear stretch of what Smith said. Smith had only stated that those practicing polygamy were doing so under the direction of his revelations, and that they were blameless and would be exalted. If you wish to have that in the article, please do so. However, the problem with the current vision is that it says too much!

Every single source imaginable at least concurs that polygamy was not a part of the majority of Smith's followers. Logic concurs. If Smith taught this, what of all of his followers that were not practicing polygamy at the present time? Joseph Smith taught that for a man or woman to be exalted, they must be sealed by one having the authority for time and all eternity. He never said that a monogamous relationship was insufficient. I want a reference where he did.

The chiefest among those who refuse to let any revision stand that would correct this error has mormon garments on his page in the grossest disrespect. What a coincidence from an author trying to capture his version of "history". I want to capture the pure history of this man, monumental achievments and faults.

My suggested revision is the removal of plural before marriage, so that it says joseph smith taught that marriage was the ultimate manifestation of the new and everlasting covenant. Also, everything else suggesting he ever taught that plural marriage was the only way to salvation, which sorry to say, is half the paragraph which is exactly why it is erroneous.

If you wish to retain the page how it is, at least show me a reference other than the one falsely sited where Joseph Smith taught that a monogynous relationship would be insufficient for exaltation. That will require something more than pretending to be a scholar: actual scholarship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.213.53.41 (talk) 02:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Good point, unsigned. We bantered this one earlier and came to a compromised outcome, but I think the work is unfinished. While I'm not convinced, I will allow that Joseph may have taught a 'fuller' exaltation through plural marriage. What is missing in the text though is the teaching of Smith that through monogamous Celestial Marriage an individual could also be exalted in the highest degree of the Celestial kingdom, an unlimited exaltation. So you are right to argue that in its present state the article is misleading. How would you recommend we add this key missing fact? Any help here COgden? Welcome, unsigned, and please stay to help. You have good insight.

Canadiandy1 (talk) 18:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

I'm not seeing much input here, how about,

"Joseph Smith taught that full exaltation could be achieved only by women and men who were married within “the new and everlasting covenant.” (Doctrine and Covenants 132:19). He taught that a higher level of exaltation might be achieved through "plural marriage",[335] which was the ultimate manifestation of this New and Everlasting Covenant.[339]..."

Please note as a minor edit (in addition to the first sentence) I removed the parenthetical word 'Polygamy.' It originally followed the phrase 'plural marriage' which makes it quite redundant.

173.180.103.183 (talk) 00:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

Remember that at Wikipedia you need an authoritative secondary source.--John Foxe (talk) 01:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the problem is not that Foster doesn't support the statement. Rather, the problem is that we cite the wrong pages of Foster. The statement that Smith taught that polygamy was a requirement for the "highest exaltation" is clearly stated at least four times in the passage spanning pages 206-211 of Foster. I've made the change in the article. This is also supported in several other references (Compton, Brodie, Brooke, Smith), which I have also cited. COGDEN 10:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Referenced text versus Wikipedia text

Current reference number 335 is attached to the following points:

• (...) Mormons outside the Covenant would be mere ministering angels to those within, who would be gods.[355]

• Smith taught that the highest exaltation would be achieved through "plural marriage" (polygamy),[355] (...)

• Plural marriage allowed an individual to transcend the angelic state and become a god[340 (not 355)] by gaining an "eternal increase" of posterity.[355]

Reference 355 is Foster (1981, p. 145). Foster 1981 refers to "Religion and Sexuality: The Shakers, the Mormons, and the Oneida Community", written by Lawrence Foster, published in 1981 by Oxford Press. This url is provided for the Google Book preview of page 135 of the book. From there you can easily navegate to page 145 of the book. I read the page. It supports the first point clearly. However, the second two points are not clearly supported.

From my observation,

• The second-to-last paragraph on page 145 explains the third point mentioned above (the "eternal increase" one), but attaches it to "celestial marriage", whether monogamous or polygamous.
• The last paragraph on page 145 is the only mention of plural marriage being "a particularly exalted form of eternal or celestial marriage."
  • It never refers to plural marriage as "highest exaltation", nor as "higher than monogamous celestial marriage", but rather calls it a "particularly exalted form" and explains it as "accelerat[ing] the process [of exaltation]".
  • It never says that Smith said these things, but rather, that they are "the logic behind the Latter-day Saint version of plural marriage".

In conclusion, I feel that this source supports anon's suggestion to change "plural marriage" to "celestial marriage" for the indicated sentences. However, I'd like some more discussion before I try editing the section, since a little re-arranging will also be necessary to preserve the logical flow of the prose. ...comments? ~BFizz 05:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

As to the second point, see my note above. Foster does refer to polygamy being a requirement of the "highest exaltation" on other pages, and the other prominent secondary sources concur. COGDEN 10:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I went to the library to review the new referenced pages of Foster. It does indeed assert that general LDS belief was that polygamy brought the "highest" exaltation, but it did not specifically state that this is what Smith taught. Can you give me a quote, probably from a source more focused on the man rather than the movement (such as Brodie), that specifically attributes this teaching to JS Jr? ...comments? ~BFizz 03:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The Brodie reference that follows Foster in that footnote seems clear to me at least: "if a man went to heaven with ten wives, he would have more than tenfold the blessings of a mere monogamist, for all the children begotten through these wives would enhance his kingdom. The man with only one wife, on the other hand, would be denied even her and forced to spend eternity as a ministering angel rather than a god." (300)--John Foxe (talk) 15:59, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

What I'm looking for is the part that specifically says or clearly implies that "Joseph Smith taught..." So far all of these quotes refer to the principle being believed by LDS, but not necessarily that they were advocated or preached by Joseph Smith. (Perhaps this comes earlier in the same paragraph of Brodie?) ...comments? ~BFizz 23:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The words, "Joseph taught" are on the previous page, but it's clear that Brodie is applying the phrase to this statement as well. As is typical of Brodie, the writing style is impeccable but the scholarly niceties are lacking. There's no footnote to any source, primary or otherwise.--John Foxe (talk) 23:44, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

That's good enough for me. Thanks, Foxe. I just want to make sure that our assertions on WP are not synthesis: making assumptions based on what the sources say. If this assertion is Brodie's clear meaning, then we can stick with it. ...comments? ~BFizz 00:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Much better

I am the original unsigned instigator of the last edit regarding plural marriage. This is much better, and true. Perfectly done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Creightonian (talk • contribs) 05:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

One last tweak? The section opens with the phrase, "Smith gradually unfolded...". Could we drop the word 'gradually'? I don't deny it took place over a number of years, but I think 'unfolded' suffices.

173.180.103.183 (talk) 19:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

Sounds reasonable. COGDEN 00:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

I think there are specific issues with this article which must be addressed. Some of the more controversial topics on Smith such as slavery or polygamy are well addressed, however they are all sourced on the same biography written by a member of the church. In fact, about 1/3 of the references in this article come from the biography: Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling by Richard Bushman. Richard Bushman has written many publications for the church. Can we find a more neutral reference for these topics please?

MichJEss (talk) 11:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no we can't. Bushman is regarded as one of the foremost authorities on Smith and his life and one of the only first-hand accounts. His POV has been asked and answered in this talk page (several times, in fact). When and where appropriate we have used Brodie to counter but that's not always possible. As you may imagine, it's rather difficult to find sources that are viewed as neutral by most people. Believers have a hard time accepting criticism and non-believers have a hard time accepting believers. In short, there is no such thing as "neutral" when it comes to inflammatory, grandiose characters like Joseph Smith. Padillah (talk) 13:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

It's actually very rare that Bushman and Brodie disagree on the issues of basic factual history that we cite in this article. Bushman and Brodie are the two preeminent Smith biographies, but Bushman is cited more often than Brodie mainly because his book is longer, newer, and more comprehensive. Bushman's book as been very well received by both Mormon and non-Mormon scholars. COGDEN 13:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the tag. If MichJEss believes there's a problem with Bushman, he should first suggest a replacement.--John Foxe (talk) 15:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to say I have to disagree. I no more trust information from Bushman about Joseph Smith than I would a biography of the Pope written by a member of the Catholic faith. I am attempting to locate a neutral reference. You are encouraged to help in the research. Until then I have replaced the tag because I am still disputing the neutrality based on a pretty obvious flaw.

Suggested Replacements thusfar: "Joseph Smith" by Robert V. Remini [[1]]

I'll be dropping by the library today to do some more research.

MichJEss (talk) 19:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Despite his being a non-Mormon, Remini's work is far more friendly to Mormonism and forgiving of Smith-related controversies than Bushman's biography is. Remini is well-regarded generally as a historian, but his work on Joseph Smith is not regarded as particularly insightful or authoritative. (See the review by Jan Shipps.) Plus, his work is rather short and is not nearly as comprehensive as Bushman and Brodie. I think we've already made about as much use of Remini in this article as we can, given the book's lack of depth. COGDEN 21:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree about the quality of Remini's biography. Remini's a gifted scholar and writer (he won the National Book Award for one of his Andrew Jackson volumes), but his Joseph Smith biography proves that one can't bank on a lifetime of research in one area to provide the requisite understanding of another.

My estimate of MichJEss has risen, however. I can't remember the last time someone on Wikipedia said he'd go to the library and do research. May he have the wind to his sails.--John Foxe (talk) 21:56, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

MichJEss, I don't want you to think that your concern about neutrality and using trustworthy source is falling on deaf ears, and I think you have good instincts to want to avoid works within a certain genre of polemical Mormon apologetics. But Bushman's book is not in that genre. Bushman is a professional history professor emeritus at Columbia U., and his biography is the preeminent academic work on Smith's life written by anyone, Mormon or non-Mormon. It is pretty much unanimous among the top scholars of American religion that Bushman's work is the best and most professional treatment of Smith's life in existence, with the possible exception of Brodie's book which has held that post for half a century. Take a look at Amazon.com, where you will see some of the reviews by non-Mormon experts in American religious history like John F. Wilson (Princeton), Harry Stout (Yale Divinity School), and Stephen J. Stein (Indiana University). Jan Shipps, a non-Mormon who is the foremost authority on Mormon historiography, called the book "the crowning achievement of new Mormon history." Nobody says that Bushman's book is perfect, but its academic credentials are unassailable. Plus, there's nothing in Bushman that is particularly controversial. It's all copiously sourced, and generally reflects the consensus of mainstream (both Mormon and non-Mormon) scholarship about Smith. COGDEN 01:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

That is silly. He is arguably the greatest expert on Smith. There is not one person who could deny that. You cannot exclude him as a reference simply because he is Mormon. That demonstrates the grossest bias on your own part, to use only authors that are not Mormon. Unbelievable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Creightonian (talk • contribs) 03:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

You know, I actually agree with MichJEss that Bushman is not a good source, but likely for a completely different reason. I don't question his work or methodology, just his cynical approach. It seems that his aim is actually to focus on Joseph Smith's shortcomings not his strengths (or at least it seems that the information most referenced here is that which is juicy or inflammatory). So in the end you have two key sources, a bitter anti-Mormon and the only key academic Mormon researcher with a cynical focus.

So if you're questioning bias in the article, I agree fully with you. It's systemically way too anti-Mormon, though I do sense an increase in the dignity shown lately by contributors, who are showing great general sensitivity to the LDS community.

173.180.103.183 (talk) 05:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

If a non-Mormon complains that Bushman's too pro-Mormon, and a Mormon complains that Bushman's too anti-Mormon, we're about as close as we're going to get to NPOV in a cited source.--John Foxe (talk) 11:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't like that reality, John, but I think you're bang on this time.

173.180.103.183 (talk) 06:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

MichJEss's claim of POV

MichJEss, here's a space to describe what you believe is both cited to Bushman and is POV.--John Foxe (talk) 03:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)