Talk:Joseph Smith

Emma Hale Smith caption

I feel that the information contained in the caption of Emma Hale Smith does not belong there. I'm not suggesting that we remove the text entirely, just that we move it into that section. As it stands, the image does not follow consistency with the rest of the article's images. What does everyone else think? Thanks, w7jkt ^talk 19:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

This caption been extensively debated in the past, and it supplies important information to the reader. Having this information with the picture means that many more people will read and learn from it. Frankly, if consistency's the goal, it would be better if the other images in the article had such descriptive captions.--John Foxe (talk) 20:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to the current caption, but I also believe that a simpler caption would be fine. The problem is, it's just odd to say "Emma Smith, wife of Joseph Smith" without also saying something about Joseph's polygamy. ...comments? ~BFizz 02:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with Foxe. Some of us worked for awhile on that caption before the usual, respected editors of the time were happy all 'round. Best, User:A Sniper 02:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I apologise for bringing up a previously debated issue (which I couldn't find in the archives for some reason), but regardless I think that my previous statement still applies. I think that, as John said, if we won't change the text of that caption, we should at least adjust the others in the article for consistency. And this might have been asked already, but why is that particular statement of such importance that it needs to be in the caption? Isn't the section about Joseph's family, not his polygamy? Thanks, w7jkt ^talk 18:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Polygamy is certainly a family matter.--John Foxe (talk) 19:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Stating "Emma Smith, wife of Joseph Smith" is correct, but neglects to mention that he had other "wives", for some definition of "wives". ...comments? ~BFizz 01:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm certainly OK with mentioning other "wives", but "Portrait of Emma Hale Smith, who like her husband, always publicly denied Smith's polygamy" seems somewhat disjointed to me. Could we not say something like, "Emma Hale Smith, first wife of Joseph Smith." or something to that extent? I don't particularly like it but it seems more focused than the other. Thanks, w7jkt ^talk 13:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

One problem with "first wife" is that it suggests that Emma Smith died. Besides, I think it important to mention that Emma always publicly denied that her husband had practiced polygamy, and that information gets read much more often in the image caption. If it's just the sentence structure you don't like, that could be reworded as. "Portrait of Emma Hale Smith. Like her husband, she always denied that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy."--John Foxe (talk) 14:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I have no doubt that you view that statement important. I contend, however, that "first wife" does not suggest that Emma died, it suggests more than one wife. It's blatantly obvious when taken in context. But it still remains that if the caption remains a statement contained within the section, then the other captions must be changed as well for consistency. Thanks, w7jkt ^talk 19:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you John. I recall that this was a lot of back & forth to get it the way it is now, what with competing voices and views. I know my own unique perspective as an editor was respected by editors as diverse as you and Storm Rider. In any case, I do hope that we can keep the caption as is, with the refs intact. Best, A Sniper (talk) 19:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of whether it has been previously discussed, it is not consistent and, I think, just does not flow. Why should it matter if editors have agreed upon it in the past? While I respect the contributions of editors much more experienced than myself, things change, articles evolve and there are changes that need to be made in order to make a better article. Thanks, w7jkt ^talk 13:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

So what's your suggestion as to how the caption should read?--John Foxe (talk) 16:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I made my suggestion earlier: "Emma Hale Smith, first wife of Joseph Smith." which I think is appropriate. If you strongly disagree can we meet in the middle somewhere? The caption's primary purpose is to describe the image depicted, is it not? w7jkt ^talk 16:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Did Joseph Smith have more than one wife?--John Foxe (talk) 17:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

What are you getting at? You're skirting the issue. w7jkt ^talk 18:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

"Skirting" the issue? ;)--John Foxe (talk) 19:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah... What is your suggestion then? w7jkt ^talk 14:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• Emma Smith, first of the many wives of the polygamist Joseph Smith. Works for me, short & sweet. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 18:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm with you, W7jkt. It seems in poor taste that the summation of Emma Smith's legacy is her stand on Polygamy. This is the lady who was the mother of all of Joseph's children (despite conflicting records no DNA evidence has ever proven otherwise). She stood by him through all of his persecutions, lost multiple children in childbirth, adopted and raised others with Joseph, endured Joseph's murder, stayed behind when the Saints left for the West; and all we see when scanning the article is about her position on polygamy. I'm sorry I wasn't involved in any previous discussion. No offense to those who debated this one previously but I agree with W7jkt that the caption read simply;

"Emma Hale Smith, first wife of Joseph Smith."

Even more dignified for the descendants of Joseph would be,

"Emma Hale Smith, wife of Joseph Smith."

But I'm sure we'd never get away with that one.

173.180.123.61 (talk) 17:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

Thank you for your suggestion, Duke. One of the problems with that statement is that we need to qualify "many" in this instance. Since there has been many suppositions as to just how many wives Joseph did have and whether or not they were legitimately his wives, that creates an issue. We could remove the word many for a start. Regards, w7jkt ^talk 18:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Emma Smith, first of the many at least 33 wives of polygamist Joseph Smith. Still short & sweet. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 18:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, now don't be cheeky. You know that even that number is disputed. There can be no definite number as we are lacking in documentation and reliable sources. How about: Emma Hale Smith, first of the wives of Joseph Smith. No need to mention "polygamist" at that point because it is implied. Regards, w7jkt ^talk 19:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

•"You know that even that number is disputed" That's why I added the qualifier 'at least'; I will use Todd Compton’s In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives Of Joseph Smith as my source, thank you very much. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 02:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

•p.s. Your snide comment about me being 'cheeky' isn't appreciated or helpful. Duke53 | ^Talk 02:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Lumping Emma with Smith's other polygamous wives is just as bad as ignoring the polygamous wives. Something along these lines would be more accurate: "Emma Hale married Joseph Smith in 1827. To Emma's dismay, Joseph later practiced polygamy in the 1840s." ...comments? ~BFizz 21:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

If the image were to be found in a section on 'plural marriage' it might be seen as potentially appropriate. However the section is on 'Family and Descendants'. It is not reliably proven that Joseph had any children outside his marriage to Emma. So it simply looks like muckraking to highlight Emma's position on polygamy so prevalently while downplaying the amazingly challenging and compassionate work she performed in raising her several children through such challenging circumstances. You can argue this is a LDS sentiment, but I don't believe respect for the dignity of the role of mothers is exclusive to Mormonism. And as long as mindless academia trumps dignity, we're going to keep having problems with this article.

Canadiandy1 (talk) 21:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

...or we could simply allow what is there to stand. Do what you want to other photo captions but this one took a lot of tweaking and I've watched & waited until somebody would want to enter that arena again...and here we are. Best, A Sniper (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I've dug up the old conversation in the archives for everyone's reference: Talk:Joseph_Smith,_Jr./Archive_14#Joseph_Smith.27s_wives-a_controversy_between_John_Foxe_and_A_Sniper ...comments? ~BFizz 23:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)\

Thanks for looking that up, Fizz. I did recall that what ended up there was after input from me, Foxe and COgden. At least it shows that the words were chosen carefully, and, actually, it was Foxe who came up with it and I inserted it. Best, A Sniper (talk) 00:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Whoa. I have reviewed the past discussion on the subject. Nowhere in that discussion was W7jkt's point "...the information contained in the caption of the Emma Hale Smith does not belong there. I'm not suggesting that we remove the text entirely, just that we move it into that section. As it stands, the image does not follow."

raised significantly. His point is not about the text itself, but its location in the caption box. This is a new point which deserves to be discussed. What's the rush?

Canadiandy1 (talk) 02:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

Despite lack of consensus, I've made an edit to the caption. There are two reasons I feel this version is better:

• References don't really belong in captions
• I've given years so the reader can quickly understand Emma was different than Joseph's other polygamous wives.

I've preserved the notion that Emma denied Smith's polygamy, though I've not used the phrase "always publicly denied", which I'm not sure any historian has asserted (we don't cite any). ...comments? ~BFizz 16:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Upon inspection, the Church History reference seems to be completely irrelevant to the point. Assuming "Church History" means "History of the Church", see History of the Church v. 3 pp 356-357. Perhaps a different edition was being cited? ...comments? ~BFizz 16:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

BFizz, thanks very much for that change. I feel that it is one that probably most of us will agree upon. I, for one, think it is brilliant. And as for Duke, I apologise if my remark came across as snide, and, upon reflection, I'm not sure if it could have come across as anything but. I am sorry, I didn't mean it. Regards, Firinne ^talk 17:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

BFizz, I greatly appreciate the improvements you have been able to make here thanks to your time and contributions. My concern is not that the wording is not a huge improvement, but whether it belongs there at all. The same information should be held within the text, so that Emma's entire life is not summed up according to her position on polygamy. What would be so horrible if the caption read something like;

"Married to Joseph in January 1827, Emma was the mother of seven natural and two adopted children."

The information on her position on polygamy could then be placed in the section's second paragraph where it seems to fit naturally.

This woman, love her or hate her, raised 9 children through incredibly trying circumstances. How is this trumped by her position on polygamy and the dispute that she did or didn't know Joseph was "married" again in a literal or dynastic way. Replacing a clear family reality with a speculative, debated, and critical item makes no sense.

I have no more to say on the wording, but I want to voice my opinion that the debate on the location of the caption's text is far from closed.

173.180.123.61 (talk) 18:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

It's important to state that Emma, as well as Joseph, denied that Joseph practiced plural marriage because that information helps draw the reader into this section of material. Emma's refusal to publicly admit the truth about her husband's polygamy provides significant insight into her moral and spiritual character.--John Foxe (talk) 19:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

John Foxe,

I'm going to drop this one. It seems that there is too much appetite for branding Emma as a liar. Maybe we can deal with it later when things have cooled down a little. But I will repeat that it is not 'that' it is stated, but 'where' it is stated. And does it really matter whether the article calls her a liar first and then informs us she had several children, or instead refers to her as a mother and then calls her a liar? Either way your opinion is validated.

173.180.123.61 (talk) 20:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

Most women have children, many have several. Few women have husbands who practice polygamy, know about the practice, and then deny it.--John Foxe (talk) 20:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, most women have children. And all people die. Just because it is common (and was inevitable) does that mean we stop putting up headstones? Judging from what I read on headstones we usually honor deceased individuals by recognizing their family connections as their primary accomplishment, regardless of what they are popular for.

173.180.123.61 (talk) 20:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

This is an encyclopedia article, not an obituary or a tombstone.--John Foxe (talk) 23:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I have two questions about Foxe's modifications, and one objection:

• Why is it important to say Emma "publicly" denied Joseph's polygamy?
• Why is it important in the caption of Emma's portrait to say Joseph also denied his polygamy?
• By changing the sentence, it's unclear whether the polygamy or the denials were "during the 1840s".

...comments? ~BFizz 21:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Another objection I have is that Foxe's change makes it less clear that Smith did, in fact, practice polygamy. The version prior made it quite plain. ...comments? ~BFizz 21:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

• It's important to say that Emma "publicly" denied Joseph's polygamy because we have pretty good evidence that she (mistakenly) thought she could control his sexual behavior by selecting appropriate partners for him.
• It's important to say that Joseph denied his polygamy because this article is about Joseph. (It wouldn't necessarily be appropriate in Emma Smith's article.)
• Both the polygamy and the denials largely occurred in the 1840s.
• An argument could be made that Joseph was not practicing polygamy but fornication.--John Foxe (talk) 23:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with, but can live with, #2 and #3. Regarding #1...what? First of all, that is a complete non sequeter, perhaps you left out a few logical steps in-between that would lead from one point to the other, but I don't see what "Emma controlling Smith" has to do with the addition of the word "publicly". Second of all...what "good evidence" do we have of that? That position is extremely speculative. Regarding #4, in most peoples' value systems, the two are equivalent. It is still a terrible reason for not asserting that Smith practiced polygamy in clear terms in this caption. The whole reason we agree that the caption "Emma Hale Smith, wife of Joseph Smith" is insufficient is because it fails to mention Smith's polygamy. ...comments? ~BFizz 01:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I've dropped the "publicly" and tweaked the wording to get the date up front. I think Utah elders of the late nineteenth century would be horrified to have a religious descendant willing to equate plural marriage with serial infidelity.--John Foxe (talk) 09:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

What I understand from your comments, John, is that your sole purpose in editing is to establish your particular (and that of most anti-Mormons) POV that Joseph Smith had gone off the deep end and was a sexual deviant. It's clear that you will use whatever "sources" necessary in order to establish that. You're grasping at straws here. Whether or not you think an argument could be made about Joseph Smith being a fornicator has no relevance to this caption. We are willing to meet halfway by keeping the polygamy statement in the caption because it draws readers into the section, but your interjection of irrelevant information into the caption is just illogical. Firinne ^talk 11:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

What's the problem with what's there right now: "Emma Hale Smith married Joseph Smith in 1827. During the 1840s, both Joseph and Emma denied that Joseph was practicing polygamy"?--John Foxe (talk) 13:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I still think that a sentence structure like "Though Emma denied it, her husband practiced polygamy in the 1840s" sentence structure would be slightly better. However, I do think Foxe's recent change was a step in the right direction and I'm willing to let it rest there. ...comments? ~BFizz 13:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

If you can live with it, so can I.--John Foxe (talk) 18:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

"Emma Hale Smith married Joseph Smith in 1827. During the 1840s, both Joseph and Emma denied that Joseph was practicing polygamy". This one gets my 'vote'. Duke53 | ^Talk 20:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Considering I raised the objection to any edits made to what Foxe wrote a year ago, this new edit works for me. However, if we find denials by both parties from earlier than 1840, can we just drop the decade entirely? Best, A Sniper (talk) 20:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Tweak: "Emma Hale Smith married Joseph Smith in 1827. While they were married, both Joseph and Emma denied that Joseph was practicing polygamy" Duke53 | ^Talk 20:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The reason I added the decade in the first place was to put Emma in context: she was Joseph's only wife for ~13 years, and then Joseph practiced polygamy for ~5 years before his death. Any of the recent revisions or proposals are good enough for me, though. ...comments? ~BFizz 00:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not particularly happy with it, but I'm willing to concede this one. It will do. I do, however, agree with BFizz about showing that Emma and Joseph were married for 13 years before the polygamy began. It seems appropriate to me. Regards, Firinne ^talk 17:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Taking that position would make Smith's involvement with Fanny Alger in the 1830s simple fornication.--John Foxe (talk) 19:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Guys, let's not even go there. I'm hoping the wording now is by consensus and should be supported by the various viewpoints represented here, mine included. Best, A Sniper (talk) 19:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Just my word to the unwary about how an apparently simple statement can produce unforeseen controversy.--John Foxe (talk) 19:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

"Taking that position would make Smith's involvement with Fanny Alger in the 1830s simple fornication". That is spot on. I suppose that Smith could / should also be labeled as an adulterer; is there a classification (or category) available for that at WP (to be placed at the top of the article page) ? Incidentally, that would also make Emma a cuckquean. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 20:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH would not permit you to do that, nor would WP:NPOV. alanyst ^/talk/ 20:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

[discussion regarding adultery moved to new section]

Changed back to 'restorationist'

I believe it was COgden who made a change I never saw discussed in which the article now refers to the church Joseph Smith founded as a 'primitivist' church. While Joseph Smith did identify the church as a reflection of the 'primitive Christian church' his word usage in context referred to the original church organized by Christ and did not mean any discredit (why would he discredit the church he was patterning [his] work after?). The term 'primitivist' in our modern context however seems to reflect backwards thinking or even old-fashioned. Clearly, the term 'restorationist' is more reflective of his aim, more clear, and more courteous to those of the Latter Day Saint movements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiandy1 (talk • contribs) 07:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Christian Restorationism has a completely irrelevant meaning. Also, there are many types of "restorationism," but the term Christian primitivism is a specific type of restorationism, and is most descriptive of the type shared by early Mormonism and related groups such as the Disciples of Christ. The term "primitivist" in this context has nothing to do with "backward thinking." It is a widely-used term used by both Mormon and non-Mormon scholars. (See, e.g., references to the term on Google Scholar, etc.) COGDEN 12:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

"Restoration" is certainly a common thing for a Mormon to say when describing Smith's establishment of the Church of Christ. I suppose that "Christian Restorationism" shouldn't be used, though I often suggest "restorationist Christian", in this case I think we could simply replace the phrase "a Christian primitivist church" with a description of what that means. For example, "he organized a church named the Church of Christ, calling it a restoration of the church established by Jesus Christ." ...comments? ~BFizz 04:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Perfect, BFizz! COgden. I see your point in phrasing, and I don't like the idea of dumbing down the article, but I think it is important to point out that most readers of the article will not be familiar with the phraseology often used here. While the term 'primitivist' may be accurate, my vote is for terminology more common to the majority of readers.

173.180.123.61 (talk) 07:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

While Mormons use the term restoration, very few of them use the term restorationist or know what it means, any more than they know what Christian primitivism means. But the latter is a more specific term. Why use vegetable when you can use carrot? COGDEN 11:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The point isn't whether Mormons understand the term, but whether common readers do. Why use the term 'pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis' when 'lung disease' will do?

173.180.123.61 (talk) 01:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

The problem is, if you say restorationism, nobody knows what you are talking about. You could mean Christian Restorationism, the Restoration Movement, universal reconciliation, or Christian primitivism. The best way to make sure that the common reader understands which of these things you are talking about is to use the most specific term. COGDEN 05:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, COgden. The best solution is what BFizz suggests;

"He organized a church named the Church of Christ, calling it a restoration of the church established by Jesus Christ."

What problem do you have with his wording?

173.180.123.61 (talk) 02:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

The issue is that, independently of merely saying that Smith believed in a restoration, it's important to categorize early Mormonism as a form of Christian primitivism, which places it in the same category as the Disciples of Christ, and might prompt the reader to look at the Christian primitivism article. When given a choice between using the most specific, correct, and standard word for the purpose at hand, and an awkward and unnecessarily euphemistic phrasing, the former is always the best choice. COGDEN 19:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Are we wording this just so we can advertise for the "Disciples of Christ" page? Let's call this what it is, and not what it is like. I understand if there is a link from Christian primitivism back to this article if this fits that definition, but I don't see the need to try and jam this peg into a hole on another pegboard. The peg might even fit, but what's the need? Let's stop defining other people's religions by what we think they are or aren't like. You say, "...it's important to categorize early Mormonism as a form of Christian primitivism." I think it's important to stop categorizing religions, and to start respecting them for their individual beliefs and values.

But if it's simply about being wordy or increasing the mere number of links to other pages, then I have no further improvements to suggest.

173.180.123.61 (talk) 19:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

I was mildly irritated to find this nugget entirely edited out. But I'm tired of the heavy hitters overriding me, so I'm not going to debate it further. ...comments? ~BFizz 01:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, thought you'd be pleased that the term "Christian primitivist" was removed. It was meant as a compromise. I don't think the lede really needs to discuss the Christian primitivist background, but on the other hand, I think it's even less necessary to include a wordy definition of what Christian primitivism means. Maybe we're better off leaving the complications of Smith's doctrinal teachings to the main body of the article. COGDEN 03:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings about it, but I suppose you're right; we can leave the details to the body. One thing I found odd about your edit was that it says Smith "organized branches of the 'Church of Christ". I'm not sure the meaning will be clear to non-LDS readers, and the important thing to note is that Smith spearheaded the procedure of legally and "officially" organizing the church as its "founder". ...comments? ~BFizz 04:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The term branch there just simply means branch in the normal sense of that word, as the term branch did not yet exist as Mormon jargon. Actually, Smith called them "three churches," but that's a little confusing because they were in a sense three "churches," but they were also supposed to be part of the timeless and anti-sectarian Church of Christ described in the Book of Mormon--a church for which organization was not actually necessary from a religious perspective because it was timeless. Also, I'd rather not mention the issue of whether the Chruch of Christ was "legally" organized. Nobody has located any documents of incorporation, and therefore nobody knows if it was officially incorporated under New York law, but that's a side-issue in my opinion, more appropriate for discussion in the Church of Christ (Latter Day Saints) article. COGDEN 11:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Joseph Smith and adultery

[originally a continuation of the "Emma Hale Smith caption" talk section above.]

Mr. Foxe, I am finding quite a few sources concerning Smith's adultery and fornication; when I get them sorted I feel that this should be mentioned by name in this article. ...comments ?

An example:

"Emma had been faithful to Joseph; Joseph had taken at least twenty one, perhaps twenty two wives secretly, without Emma's knowledge; he had been unfaithful to his monogamous marriage vows. By his own "revelations," he was guilty of committing adultery. He was the transgressor. According to the above "revelation" which was "given" to her, but meant for "all," if Emma didn't comply with his desires, she would be the "transgressor."

I would only be replacing a term with a statement that says the same thing but in a way that fits the context better. I'm sure that editors on this page believe that this is allowable at WP. Duke53 | ^Talk 20:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:RS would not permit you to do that, since you'd be portraying opinions and synthesis from exmormon.org as objective facts. alanyst ^/talk/ 21:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Duke, either you have absolutely no sense of NPOV, or (much more likely) your only purpose in this conversation is to be an irritating troll. [edit: I retract this statement] Please stop blatantly insulting me. ...comments? ~BFizz 23:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course to do that you need a source that says polygamous married individuals are committing adultery. I would love to see that reference when you have it. It is interesting that I don't hear any similar accusations against those countries that practice polygamy today? Strange; can you say different standard? When you have those references, bring them to the talk page. It should be fun. Oh, and where did fornication come from? Fornication and adultery are two different things. It seems like there is a desire to sensationalize the topic; but I just can't believe that Duke would do that. He has always been so neutral and we must assume good faith of this editor. Of course, if he demonstrates differently then bad faith is evident. Cheers. -^StormRider 05:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

As soon as I verify my sources I will be introducing the adulterer angle into this article ... it will then be up to the tbms to add 'non-adulterer' citations to counter-balance my cites. Nobody answered my question above about 'replacing a term with a statement that says the same thing in a way that fits the context better', but since you were using that method I figure that it must be on the up and up. ...but what do you think ?

p.s. do you want me to place an official WP:AGF warning on your user talk page, or do you just want to knock that crap off now ? The choice is yours. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 01:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Large modifications regarding "the adulterer angle" might fit better into Criticism of Joseph Smith, Jr.#Criticisms regarding sex and marriage and its subarticles. Note that we do already have a sentence in this article that states "Smith's plural relationships were preceded by a "priesthood marriage," which Smith believed legitimized the relationships and made them non-adulterous." If you really want to state the obvious, you could add that those who don't follow Smith's school of thought consider polygamous relationships to be adultery, and therefore consider Smith an adulterer. ...comments? ~BFizz 01:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Duke53, what is the source of your proposed citation? If you are suggesting that Smith's plural marriages were defined as adultery under D&C 132, I think that's an interpretive leap, and one that Smith--whose word after all was "the law" with respect to defining Mormon adultery--would have disagreed. If you read D&C 132 closely, there is a lot of built-in ambiguity that can undermine any bright-line rules you might think exist there. COGDEN 06:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

COGDEN, I will have my ducks in a row when I decide that the addition is ready for this article. But there are a few things that you should be aware of:

1) Mention (and citations) of his adultery will be based on the definition outlined by the law of the land at that time, not by Smith's own 'law'.

2) Smith lied about being a polygamist, why would any normal person believe that he wouldn't lie about being an adulterer ? His 'truthfulness' about his own behavior is highly suspect at best. Any denials of his concerning his adulterous behavior will be treated with much skepticism.

3) A while ago I made the decision to not respond to trolls and / or stalkers; I absolutely do NOT consider you either of the above, so I will respond to you (as time permits). I have quite a few irons in the fire right now, so I will be visiting WP only when I get a bit of free time. I may pop in for a few minutes here and there, but expect my participation to be spotty until Spring holidays are completed; my plate is full until then. Best. Duke53 | ^Talk 07:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Alas, COgden has been designated as worthy of response. My heart is broken and my tears can't stop. Oh, well, I am still eager to see the references. Curious, Smith did nto have a "definition", certainly one that does not conflict with any known definitions today. However, there is that spin issue that some have. Regardless, let's see what comes up. You trolls and stalkers stop pestering poor Duke. -^StormRider 08:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I have opened a request for arbitration concerning Duke53's behavior. I think any further commentary regarding him, positive or otherwise, should be taken to that venue so that the content issues may be the focus here. alanyst ^/talk/ 14:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

First Vision and misplaced citations

Smith later said that he had his own first vision in 1820, in which God told him his sins were forgiven[15] and that all churches were false.[16]

• 15 - {{Harvtxt|Smith|1832}}; {{Harvtxt|Bushman|2005|p=39}} (When Smith first described the vision twelve years after the event, "[h]e explained the vision as he must have first understood it, as a personal conversion".)
• 16 - {{Harvtxt|Smith|Mulholland|Thompson|Phelps|Richards|1839–1843|p=3}}. This vision was generally unknown to early Latter Day Saints. ''See'' {{Harvtxt|Bushman|2005|p=39}} (story was unknown to most early converts); {{Harvtxt|Allen|1966|p=30}} (the first vision received only limited circulation in the 1830s). However, the vision story gained increasing theological importance within the [[Latter Day Saint movement]] beginning roughly a half century later. ''See'' {{Harvtxt|Shipps|1985|pp=30–32}}; {{Harvtxt|Allen|1966|pp=43–69}}; {{Harvtxt|Quinn|1998|p=176}} ("Smith's first vision became a missionary tool for his followers only after Americans grew to regard modern visions of God as unusual.").

We used to state here that Smith's vision was not well known among early saints. The references for this statement appear to remain in footnote 16, but we've since cut the statement out. The refs don't seem to have anything to do with "God told him...that all churches were false", and so need to be cleaned up.

Recently, someone tried changing "God told him" to "God (the Father) and Jesus Christ (the Son) appeared to him and told him". Foxe reverted, saying that "Bushman doesn't say this". However, the quoted Bushman page is 39, where he was summarizing Smith's 1832 account. Bushman then says at the end of page 39, "At first, Joseph was reluctant to talk about his vision", and at the top of page 40, "When he described his First Vision in 1832, he abbreviated the experience. ¶ As Joseph became more confident, more details came out." I'm not suggesting we assume Bushman's POV here—he is obviously providing apologetic reasoning for the differences between versions—but it is wrong to assume Bushman doesn't support that "Smith said God and Jesus appeared to him". ...comments? ~BFizz 16:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Placement of the First Vision has been a difficulty at this article since I arrived. The First Vision is supposed to have occurred 1820, but Smith first mentions it ten years later. The canonical account is later still. At one point in the evolution of this article, there was no mention of the First Vision in the paragraph about Smith's early years. But then it worked its way back in again, largely I think because most Mormons don't understand that Smith reached his canonical understanding of the First Vision near the end of his life. (Smith's mature teachings about God and Jesus Christ are well discussed in the section on Cosmology and Theology.) I'd certainly support the statement's re-removal because the First Vision has nothing to do with Smith's early life or the founding of the Church. The one thing the paragraph should not imply is the canonical story: that Smith, as a teenager, told friends and relatives that God and Jesus Christ had appeared to him.--John Foxe (talk) 17:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Or in other words, Joseph Smith is not a reliable reference for his life. The only reliable references are people who live today. Thank God we don't use that standard for Jesus Christ; can you imagine the difficulty of limiting stories of Jesus to only "reliable" references rather than the Gospels themselves? Of course, our Evangelical, Catholic, Orthodox, and other friends would never tolerate that. We only use this standard for Mormonism because it is "controversial" and not realisitc like Jesus waking from the dead and retaking his body and returning to God the Father. How silly of me. Guys, the double standard really is egregious. ^StormRider

Even though you intend to be sarcastic, you've got it exactly right, Storm. Wikipedia standards privilege secondary sources over primary sources, so Bushman and Brodie are reliable sources about the life of Joseph Smith, but Joseph Smith is not.--John Foxe (talk) 18:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Interestingly, Bushman doesn't wait to discuss the accounts of the First Vision until his narrative gets to the 1830s, but rather places it chronologically at the point when it is supposed to have taken place, the 1820s. He at least doesn't seem to regard it as having nothing to do with Smith's early life. I wonder what other reliable biographers have done; it might help inform this discussion. alanyst ^/talk/ 19:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

A few responses to Foxe's statements:

The one thing the paragraph should not imply is the canonical story: that Smith, as a teenager, told friends and relatives that God and Jesus Christ had appeared to him - Correct. Sources generally agree that he didn't tell his friends as a teenager.

the First Vision has nothing to do with Smith's early life - Wrong. Of course it has to do with his early life: Smith claimed that the First Vision occurred in 1820. Obviously, we need not get into deep discussion of his teachings regarding the nature of God at that point in the article, but like Bushman, I think it important for us to note at this point in the chronology that Smith said the First Vision occurred.

Sorry, I should have made it clear that the two paragraphs I wrote at the beginning of this section are two disjoint concerns that happen to deal with the same sentence. 1) lingering citations for now-deleted text, 2) what Bushman says or doesn't say. ...comments? ~BFizz 20:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Fawn Brodie also gets the First Vision in early—but only to ridicule it as possibly a "sheer invention, created some time after 1830 when the need arose for a magnificent tradition to cancel out the stories of his fortune-telling and money-digging."(25) Someone else can correct me here if I'm wrong, but I believe Dan Vogel avoids the First Vision story completely because he takes Joseph only to Kirtland, and the First Vision story was publicized after that.

As a believer, Bushman almost of necessity had to mention the First Vision early, but he at least says that "most early converts probably never heard about the 1820 vision," an experience that Brodie says "if it had happened, would have been the most soul-shattering experience of his whole youth." Obviously if you believe that Smith had the First Vision, then it would have had an impact on his early life. But all secondary sources agree that there's no contemporary evidence for it.--John Foxe (talk) 20:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

According to the citation at First Vision, Brodie actually says it "was probably the elaboration of some half-remembered dream...or it may have been sheer invention" (emphasis mine), leaving open the possibility that something did in fact occur in 1820 (even if it was only a dream or hallucination). We're not writing this article from a believing or disbelieving standpoint. Smith said it happened in 1820, so it makes sense to mention it where Smith said it happened. We don't assert that it actually happened, and we don't assert that (if it happened) it had any impact on his life. We just mention that's what Smith said happened at that time in his life. ...comments? ~BFizz 20:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Although I'd certainly support removal of the sentence in question, it's pretty tame and says nothing about Smith seeing God and Jesus. For that reason, and because there would be constant attempts to reinsert it anyway, I don't object to its continuance.--John Foxe (talk) 22:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with it as is, though I'd support specifying Smith seeing God and Jesus, and would oppose its removal. So we're both OK with it as it stands; I'll leave it to others to argue if they feel strongly about changing it. ...comments? ~BFizz 03:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Foxe, secondary sources are preferred, but in the case of Mormonism that would be the scripture texts just like we use in the case of Jesus. Outside of the Bible there is almost nothing to support the reality of Jesus Christ...Josephus is hardly a glowing support given the controversy with it. It is still a double standard. I would support stating what the text says, Jesus and God appeared to Joseph Smith in 1820 while still a boy. Then while still a boy/young teen he continued to see an angel until such time as the angel decided he could have the plates. -^StormRider 18:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

At Wikipedia, Mormon scriptures (including the Bible) are not reliable sources, which are defined as materials "vetted by the scholarly community" and/or "published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses."--John Foxe (talk) 20:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I support the existing text (though we can certainly address the footnote concerns raised by B Fizz). I think there is at least reasonable historical evidence that Smith had some sort of mystical experience in his youth. He initially would have taken that experience to signify a remission of his sins, and possibly a confirmation of the anti-sectarian views he shared with his father. But if the vision is mentioned chronologically, I don't think we should make too much of it, given that Smith himself didn't initially make too much of what would have been seen at the time as a run-of-the-mill theophany. He, for example, didn't think to cite the experience as evidence of his prophethood until his authority was threatened by the Kirtland Safety Society fiasco. COGDEN 20:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the misplaced references. They are still recorded at the top of this talk page section, if anyone wanted to use them elsewhere. ...comments? ~BFizz 00:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

According to the Joseph Smith history, it plainly states i.e. there is no confusion or ability to misunderstand, that the first vision was not limited to a forgiveness of sins and it had a major impact on his life. Strange that something so significant is tossed aside. Is that done with Bernadette Soubirou? The quick answer is no; nor with Jesus, Muhammad, etc. etc. etc. -^StormRider 14:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Double standards?

I hesitate to embrace Storm's comparison between "scripture" describing Joseph Smith's life and "scripture" describing the life of Jesus; there are many differences, for example, the life of Smith is much more well-documented outside of scripture. However, it is true that The life of Jesus in the New Testament is written following the chronology of Jesus' life, rather than addressing the gospels in chronological order of when they were written; I can see where Storm's "double-standard" accusation is coming from. ...comments? ~BFizz 00:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

This Joseph Smith article is more analogous to the Historical Jesus article. If there were an article entitled "Life of Joseph Smith in his 1838-39 history", or "Life of Joseph Smith in LDS Church Education System manuals", that would be more analogous to The life of Jesus in the New Testament. COGDEN 01:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with your comparison. This article is more akin to the Jesus article. There is a section addresses the historical Jesus, as in no evidence of anything that is said about him or believed by Christians. However, the article itself is firmly based in belief or what I would call sacred history. The only difference between the two articles is the double standard used in their writing and the presumption that editors whould respect sacred history as the priority and then follow up with the historical Jesus.

Double standards are used when editors are so thoroughly blind to the premise of their own beliefs they do not see what is before their eyes. They are incapable to use the same standard for their own beliefs that they demand of others. Worse, they ignore the facts of another's beliefs so completely they blithely throw out the words of the founder, his family, his friends (unless it is negative) for the words of "historians" regardless of agenda and those that can only assemble bits and pieces of the story years ofter the fact. This makes no sense.

If we look at the "history" of Jesus and the early Christians we find almost the same type of accusations as those leveled at Joseph Smith. However, those histories are expunged as having no basis in fact and in this article it is the only facts that preoccupy the article. -^StormRider 07:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Your complaint is mostly directed against the way Wikipedia rules work, Storm. But it's also true, as Martin Marty has observed, that LDS beginnings are so recent "that there is no place to hide....There is little protection for Mormon sacredness." ("Two Integrities: An Address to the Crisis in Mormon Historiography," in George D. Smith, ed., Faithful History: Essays on Writing Mormon History [Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1992], 174.)--John Foxe (talk) 10:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, Storm argues that we should tell the "sacred history" along with the "provable history", noting each as what they are. Foxe seems interested in minimizing the "sacred history" included and maximizing the "provable history". Is that a good description of your respective editorial views? These are two valid editorial opinions; there is no absolute "right" or "wrong" in selecting criteria for inclusion in this article. But we need to be clear about what we are discussing. ...comments? ~BFizz 16:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that there exists a distinct "sacred history" or mythology of Joseph Smith outside the confines of actual history. There is just one history. Mormon scholars who deal with Smith's life, such as Bushman and Hill, use traditional (modern) historical methods and standards. They have not become mythologists. What you might call "sacred history" is still history—just history without regard for more rigorous academic standards. As such, it might be the suitable subject for a separate article, but that's not this article. COGDEN 17:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

This is the only article on Wikipedia that enforces your standard COgden; there is no other. Muhammad and Jesus conflict completely with this standard. They both address the topic from the religious viewpoint almost entirely. Only in this article is the religious perspective completely, totally denied as valid. Instead, we appeal to historians (some that admit openly they write for an objective such as Brody and others) exclusively. Secondary sources are preferred ONLY when primary sources cannot be understood or that there are diverse interpretations, which is not the problem with any of scriptures that describe the history of Joseph Smith and the early days of the Church. Rigorous academic standards is a red herring because they are limited in their sources to use and they then make a deduction on the sources available. It is a stool that stands on a single leg. There is no reason to use the actual history from the people involved; primarily Joseph Smith. Up until now his words have been expunged from the article to provide the pseudo appearance of neutrality and historical accuracy. Why is this article handled uniquely from Muhammad's article? Why the double standard? Who is benefited by this double standard? Who is harmed by it? Those answers remove the cover for POV pushing and anything but neutrality. -^StormRider 18:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with COGDEN that history is one. In presenting that history, pure neutrality is impossible because man is finite, imperfect, and sinful; but it is the duty of the historian to present past events as clearly and objectively as possible. When "sacred history" veers from the truth of the historical record, it becomes to that extent a pious lie.

If there's double standard at Muhammed and Jesus, then Storm's complaint is with those articles.

It's incorrect to say that Wikipedia prefers secondary sources "ONLY when primary sources cannot be understood." WP:RS states, "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible....When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised."--John Foxe (talk) 18:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

According to "provable history", Smith didn't mention the "First Vision" until the 1830s, and gave different details as time went on. Whether or not he had the vision is practically unprovable. According to "sacred history", Smith saw the Father and Son in 1820.

According to "provable history", the person we call Jesus might have existed. He might have been born of a woman named Mary. He might have gathered followers that might have eventually organized and become what we might call the early Catholic church. According to "sacred history", Jesus was born of a virgin, performed miracles, atoned for the sins of mankind, and rose from the dead.

I feel there is an obvious importance in explaining the religious beliefs surrounding a person. If the Jesus article only stuck to the "provable history" of his life, it would be about two paragraphs long. I agree with the notion of absolute truth in regards to history: things happened in a particular way and that's it. But "provable history" is not a complete view of that "one history", and the work of even the best scholars is sometimes incorrect. Religious views are arguably more often incorrect, but are also an important look at the "one history". I believe in the past Foxe has put forward the editorial opinion that this article should stick to just history and leave religious details to other articles. I disagree in that regard. ...comments? ~BFizz 18:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I can't remember saying that we ought to ignore religious details here. (But then sometimes I read stuff I've written and shake my head wondering where my brain was on that occasion.) One can't deal with Joseph Smith without considering religious details. Fawn Brodie tried it, but the omission weakened her biography.

Again, if there's a problem with the article on Jesus, that's something that should be dealt with over there. This one's about Joseph Smith, and there are, among other things, five hefty volumes of Early Mormon Documents on which to base biographies.--John Foxe (talk) 18:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Foxe, I didn't mean to put words into your mouth. ;) As for the Jesus article, I don't feel there's a problem there. On the contrary, I use it as an exemplary article to follow. Though I'm sure if I gave it as much attention as I do this article, I could find some things to fix. ...comments? ~BFizz 21:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I think we are missing the elephant in the room, cultural history. We live in a culture which is heavily based in the traditions of the Catholic (Christian) practices. 500 years ago if you dared to criticize Jesus you were killed as a heretic. And the practice has endured of people raising a stink over disrespect for popular religious figures (Mohammed, Allah, Jesus, God ...). To avoid the reaction to such we have traditionally kept quiet on such matters. Now along comes Joseph Smith. Two differences arise. One, Joseph Smith is not accepted by the mainstream of American culture. Two, the LDS people take a pacifistic approach to religious persecutions against them. In essence, Mormons have become "fair game" because they do not have the critical numbers to support their position and because there is a common cultural acceptance of mocking their beliefs openly.

So what is the solution? I hope I am not offending anyone, but in the U.S. there seems to still be a culture of selective discrimination. I am more in favour of the general European model (the Swiss situation being atypical) of universal tolerance of all cultures and faiths, whether one likes them or not. I believe what I, and others, have been arguing all along is that our religious heritage be treated with the same dignity and respect as is shown others. I mean no offense, but it seems to me that most of the editors here are from the USA. My more 'progressive' non-LDS friends would likely call the tone here a bit 'redneck.' (I agree, it would be kind of hypocritical for them to stereotype 'stereotypers'). I am able to look beyond the regional characteristics and would argue this is not an individual, or even regional problem, but it is a systemic one. I wonder what this article would look like if it were researched and edited by contributors from a more Muslim or Jewish or Lutheran background (each culture having experience with religious discrimination). Again, no offense is intended here, but as an outsider to the American culture I felt my observations might be helpful.

As long as the individual editors here are going to continue with their labeling and defamation of Joseph Smith as a liar, an adulterer, and a traitor (and then turn the same dirty brush on a mother of 9 who knew a life of incredible hardship and persecution) the problem won't end. As long as the key editors here have a negative attitude toward this religiously sensitive figure the problem won't end. The article will be stuck in the miry clay of intolerance, and common readers will be left with a cynical and skeptical view of Wikipedia as a whole.

I've been calling for a paradigm shift here all along. Not to push Joseph Smith. To push fairness. I would be just as vocal if Luther, or Mohammed, or Billy Graham were treated in the same insensitive way. I know it is not likely that the same editors who brought us to this point will be the ones to fix the problem. But as long as these posts are archived, I figure I'd wade in and offer my thoughts for improvement.

Canadiandy1 (talk) 21:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

Our personal views about Joseph Smith, the LDS Church, Luther, Muhammad, and Billy Graham are of no consequence here. According to Wikipedia rules, articles must be based on scholarly, peer-reviewed secondary sources—and this one is.--John Foxe (talk) 22:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I personally do not want to see this article written from a cultural perspective - I want to see it written from bona fide sources. Only when all of us working from different perspectives - but basing our work on mutual respect and the use of reliable material - can we fashion an article that is truly encyclopedic. Back when I edited often I was one of the only editors from my persepctive in what seemed like a sea of LDS & anti-LDS editors (I am neither). Smith was either the fake snakeoil seller or a gigantic statue in Salt Lake City - rarely anywhere in the middle...and it is that human element that I have tried to interject, because Smith is fascinating to me as a charismatic man out of Americana who had followers and enemies, and not because I think he is a charlatan or a god-like Prophet. I admitted openly that I am a direct descendant (and rather a CoC apologist, but only due to a life of connection and not on account of belief or support) but willing to labor on consensus and to explore all avenues of scholarship in verifying sources. One of my only complaints was what appeared to be the trend of dismissing out of hand all primary sources with all weight on the latest secondary works, which all seemed to fall into the camps of the new Mormon history or the axe-to-grinders (with no Howard or Launius in there). I fully understand the wiki rules re: secondary sources, but still felt that contemporary news/writings were relevant. I'm not opposed to having any 'sacred' stuff peppered...but whose specifically? LDS modern? LDS contemporary? Instead can't we just do what we've always been doing - bouncing ideas off of each other and trying to paint the whole picture, without sliding over to just one camp? Above all it should be about respecting each other as we do this thing. My last thought would be about why I re-entered the scene to open my mouth about the Emma photo box - this was because I wanted her own words, her own perspective, to be noted, even if editors could interpret personally that she was deluded, or a liar...but at least the fact she continually stated these words until her deathbed would be memorialized. Best, A Sniper (talk) 01:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I have no issue with the Jesus and Muhammad articles, and I think they are pretty good, especially Muhammad. But both Jesus and Muhammad are mostly mythology with a little history thrown in (a bit more history for Muhammad than Jesus), whereas Joseph Smith is almost all history and only a tiny amount of mythology. By saying that, I'm not implying that the mythology is "untrue" or that mythology is inferior to history, I'm just saying that it is the nature of scripture to care more about presenting stories with intended universal meaning, rather than about presenting some intended genuine representation of the past. Thus, it's only expected that the Jesus and Muhammad articles would look more like the Prester John article, and be written from a mythological perspective, while the Joseph Smith article would look more like the Thomas S. Monson article, and be written from a historical perspective. COGDEN 05:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

There are no problems with the Jesus article or the Muhammad article; the problems lies with this article. It is unique in its approach to this individual. No one has yet to answer my questions from above, why? The sacred history cannot be proved wrong; it is what it is. To think that historians can recreate every event from over 200 years ago is a joke. Editors consistently have omitted statements that conflict with what they perceive is "the history" of Smith. Smith's mother could not be trusted to talk about her son, so ignore her comments. However, Howe the axe-grinder, should be used. We have completely moved the pendulum to the far end and closed our eyes. The result is a very narrow perspective of this individual. The objective is to inform and when a LDS cannot even recognize the article as being about Joseph Smith then there is a problem. Balance is sorely lacking here. -^StormRider 05:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia rules, articles must be based on scholarly, peer-reviewed secondary sources. Neither Joseph Smith, Lucy Mack Smith, nor E. D. Howe are scholarly, peer-reviewed secondary sources. If an LDS member is unable to "recognize the article as being about Joseph Smith," that deficiency is a problem for both the Church and the member in question.--John Foxe (talk) 11:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

No that is not what the policy states and it is evident when anyone reads it in its entirety. Second, thank you for sharing your opinion; it was very much appreciated. Now please answer the questions asked above. Why is there a double standard? Why is this article unique on Wikipedia? Please just stop the dodging and answer the questions. They are simple I would assume for almost any editor. -^StormRider 14:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

If you've found a double standard between this article and other Wikipedia articles, the problem must be with the others because this article follows Wikipedia standards that privilege scholarly, peer-reviewed secondary sources.--John Foxe (talk) 14:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I guess the answer is 1) you don't want to answer, 2) you don't know, or 3) you know, but it would make your position look poor and you choose to ignore it. I understand how difficult it is when your position is wholly built on sand. -^StormRider

Although this article has its weaknesses like any other, it's a fine example of neutrality. During each of the article's several unsuccessful GA nominations, reviewers complained that the article was too pro-Mormon.--John Foxe (talk) 17:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Storm, there is no double standard. The Joseph Smith article is treated like any other article about a 19th century historical figure. If we treated Smith like a Jesus-like mythological figure, but treated every other 19th century person as historical people, then would be a double standard. COGDEN 21:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

COgden, the comparison is not an apples and apples comparison. Then we speak of religious figures there is always an element of faith involved and historicity ignores this fundamental part of the character. For example, Bob Jones University commits to the belief that the Bible is the actual Word of God. That is why, for them, it is completely acceptable to use the Bible to support the belief in the man called Jesus and his works and activities. The same principle is used by those Islamic Universities that believe in Muhammad. It does not matter what century and individual is born in; please don't tell me that you actual think that historians know everything about individuals in the 19th century. That premise is just as weak as those who believe in mythology.

Heck, just look at Bob Jones, Sr. for an example of how a religious figure is treated. I dare anyone to say there is not a double standard after reading that article. I find it particularly interesting that Foxe is an editor of that page and yet it drips with flowery language. I have to go clean the floor up again. -^StormRider 12:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd be happy for anyone to check out Bob Jones, Sr. and complain of a double standard. How about this sentence: "There are few references to race in Jones's sermons and chapel messages until the late 1950s, but in a 1960 radio address, Jones declared that God had been the author of segregation and that opposition to segregation was opposition to God"?--John Foxe (talk) 21:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Foxe, if you cannot read Bob Jones' article and compare it to this one and not see a shocking difference in tone and use of references, then there is a major problem. COgden's position is also called into question given that this is a 20th century fellow and the article is tract for "what a wonderful man", let's all go to BJU. I have provided several examples of articles that are treated completely differently than this article. I believe I have proven beyond doubt that there is a double standard being used. Historicity is being used as a shield to achieve a narrow agenda. My sole objective is that the article be one of balance, which has been lost in its entirety here. One cannot see the forest for the trees. -^StormRider 06:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we can hold the Bob Jones, Sr. article up as the gold standard. It's better to look toward featured articles, which have been checked for neutrality and Wikipedia policy. If we are looking for a good peer article for comparison, I'd suggest L. Ron Hubbard, another article about a controversial religious founder. However, the Hubbard article is very long for a featured article--almost twice the size of this one. The difficulty in achieving featured status increases as the article gets larger than about where we are now. COGDEN 22 March 2011 (UTC)

COgden's right that L. Ron Hubbard is a better comparison with this article than Bob Jones, Sr., and not just because it's been nominated as a feature article. Jones, unlike Hubbard and Smith, didn't found a new religion. Nor are there many peer-reviewed sources that one can use to create a Wikipedia biography for Jones. (There's no scholarly biography at all, not even a dissertation or scholarly article.) Furthermore, Jones's life is pretty humdrum by the standards of Smith and Hubbard. No visions, no run-ins with the law, and only one wife at a time.--John Foxe (talk) 10:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, believe me, I was not offering Bob Sr. as a gold standard. I was offereing it as an example of an article edited by John Foxe that is a complete powder puff, but one that is obviously acceptable to Foxe. That is a flagrant double standard perfectable acceptable to Fox.

Now we have a proposal to compare it to L Ron Hubbard. Tell me boys and girls does this fish stink? Is that why it was chosen? Particularly when the comparison initially was with the Jesus and the Muhammad articles. Are not Jesus and Muhammad founders of religions? Why are they not appropriate? -^StormRider 13:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

An important reason why it would be more appropriate to compare Joseph Smith to L. Ron Hubbard—or to a more obscure founder of a religion whose article I've also put time into, Frank Sandford—than to Jesus and Muhammad is that there are so few primary sources that have survived from more than a millennium ago. There are plenty from the nineteenth century and twentieth centuries. As I quoted Martin Marty above, LDS beginnings are so recent "that there is no place to hide....There is little protection for Mormon sacredness."--John Foxe (talk) 15:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

@Storm Rider: the only reason I mentioned the L. Ron Hubbard article is not because Hubbard should be compared personally with Smith. Rather, it was because the Hubbard article is the only biography of a controversial religious founder that has thus far achieved featured article status. Plus, Hubbard's followers share some of the love-hate relationship with his history that Smith's followers have. Though the Hubbard article is not perfect, and there are ongoing debates there, its editors have struggled with many of the same challenges, and maybe we can learn something. COGDEN 23:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

COgden, I have worked too long on the Catholic Church and Jesus articles not to understand the difference and role of historisity and sacred history. This double standard here really boils down to the ability of the majority to be tyranical over a minority. I have offered the obvious puff piece found in Bob Jones, Sr. article (one which Foxe has edited) and demonstrated how the double standard exists.

None of the references, as in not one, disprove the sacred history of Smith's life. The First Vision is no disproved, it is simply ignored in the proper context. Historicity is not the basis of an entire article. Ignoring so much of the story because they are primary sources is not following policy, it is a misuse and distortion of the property. It actually reminds me of one of Frank Herbert's books, the Dosadi Experiment and how law is becomes so twisted. Good read if you have a chance. Of course, if reflects badly on that less than noble occupation of being a lawyer. I digress. One of the great weakness of man is of not knowing they don't know. -^StormRider 06:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Having made unproven and idiosyncratic assertions about other articles, assertions that no one else here has seconded, you've then decided that your intuitions should be applied here, even if such changes would violate Wikipedia rules about the nature of reliable sources.--John Foxe (talk) 11:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Not one of you has disagreed that there is a double standard when compared to the Jesus and Muhammad articles. No one has disagreed that the Bobby article is not a complete puffery. In fact, not one person has disagreed with anything I have said. What you and COgden have tried to do is deflect the argument and offered alternative comparisons. Not one person has denied my interpretation of policy, even though you have tried to pick pieces of it while ignoring the policy as a whole. So now, what were you saying about unproven? It sounds like you are producing the same kind of ...let's just omit my vocabulary here and allow you to be creative...that is seen over at Bobby's article. The fact that you participate on both articles is what is so galling. You protect your own church and founder while attacking unjustly others. Historicity is not the sum total of an article for any other individual on Wikipedia in the category of Joseph Smith. You, COgden and I all know this is a fact. Why not just admit it? As an aside, no one ever answered my questions above. Why? Sort of makes your arguments goo doesn't it? -^StormRider 14:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on you to prove a double standard. I insist there is none. The question you have posed is a loaded one. Without proof, you insist that there is a double standard, then you insist that I explain why the double standard exists. But there is no double standard. Your belief that there is one is an unproved assertion, a product of your desire to insert material in this article that does not meet Wikipedia standards of evidence: that articles "be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" and with "academic and peer-reviewed publications" being "the most reliable."--John Foxe (talk) 15:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

@Storm Rider: I do disagree that there is a double standard. It's the same standard, which is that we mimic the range of views found within mainstream academia secondary sources, and generally ignore fringe views unless they have some special relevance. For Jesus and Muhammad, the only primary sources available are legend and mythology, and the secondary sources all deal with that legendary primary source material. For Joseph Smith, on the other hand, almost all the primary sources are contemporary history, and the ones that are old reminiscences are still amenable to standard historical analysis. More importantly, all the mainstream secondary sources rely on the historical materials, and treat Joseph Smith as a historical figure. I have yet to meet even a fringe Mormon scholar that doesn't at least give lip service to historical methodology. It would be a double standard if we treated the article on Joseph Smith any differently than we treat other early 19th century figures, particularly given that Joseph Smith has far more contemporary primary source material than most other historical figures from his era. Whether it's Jesus or Joseph, we take our clues from the mainstream secondary sources. COGDEN 19:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The trouble is, "other early 19th century figures" simply don't match Smith when it comes to asserting new doctrines, claiming divine powers and authority, and claiming to receive God's word in the form of additional scripture. The reason I personally find it relevant to mention the "sacred history" is because Smith was so unique in the way he religiously charged his followers. He caused them to believe extraordinary things about himself. Regardless of whether these views are unprovable or outright false, the religious beliefs of (now) millions of people regarding this man should be documented. Whether that's a difficult task should not stop us from trying. ...comments? ~BFizz 23:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Smith was certainly a radical thinker, but I don't think that makes a difference. It's the same standard for everybody, even for history's most extreme cults of personality, like David Koresh, Charles Manson, or Marshall Applewhite (not, by any means, to compare these diabolical crazies with Smith). COGDEN 03:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

COgden, you speak in extremes an "either or"; what I propose is presenting Joseph Smith in a balanced manner. He is both a religious figure and a historical figure. There is no question there is a religious history and there is the historicity. Currently, everything that Joseph Smith said is disabused and ignored. Most everything his close contemporaries stated is also ignored unless it is negative and those comments are cherry picked and somehow, strangely, become acceptable. This article is not recognizable by LDS, RLDS, FLDS, CofC, or any other group within the LDS movement. It is not recognizable because primiary sources are ignored competely, which is not in keeping with WP:NPOV or WP:REF. It would be helpful if you attempted to call Jesus a myth; just to see how long that attempt would last or how long Foxe would allow it. The only reason you get away with it here is because of the topic and the disinterest of the majority.

Lastly, Bushman is more than clear that Smith was not a situation of the cult of personality (and I sure that your three examples were just pulled from the air; completely neutral types, of course). Smith was anything but impressive...except when he spoke of God the Father and his Son, Jesus Christ. Strange we don't quote that in the article? There does seem to be a lot of stange things missing doesn't there?-^StormRider 06:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't misunderstand my reference to Jesus and mythology. I'm using mythology in the academic sense here, meaning that what we know about Jesus consists of stories told for a higher(?) religious purpose than mere realism or historical accuracy. We don't have much access to Jesus' history, so the secondary sources can only rely on the mythology surrounding him. For better or for worse, Western thought, and especially modern Western thought, favors history over mythology, and that's just a fact of life. Any Westerner worth his salt would rather have Jesus' history than his mythology, and many mistakenly think his mythology is his history. For Smith, we have a cold, hard, modernist consensus of history, and therefore the secondary sources focus almost entirely on that history. We work with what the secondary sources give us. COGDEN 11:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I think this disagreement stems from differences in people's vision of what this article should be. I'll start a discussion below. alanyst ^/talk/ 22:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Vision for this article

I think this article, or any other similar to it (i.e., where the subject is a controversial religious or political leader with a well studied and documented life), should achieve the following:

• Reflect the important historical facts of the person's life and legacy that reliable scholars agree upon OR are non-controversial
• Reflect (but do not attempt to answer) the important factual questions that reliable scholars disagree on, regarding the person's life and legacy
• Document (but do not adopt as Wikipedia's position) the important subjective points of view regarding the person's character, motivations, and influence, from:
  • Reliable scholars
  • Notable followers/apologists
  • Notable opponents/critics
  • The person himself or herself
  • The general public, where reliably surveyed
• Avoid disparaging, laudatory, conclusory, or speculative language

Does anyone have anything to add to this vision, or to contest? Having a collective vision akin to this would help guide our discussions and provide a foundation of mutual trust. A lot of arguments seem to stem from one side thinking the other side is trying to distort the article into something that favors their point of view. Agreement on what a non-distorted article might entail could perhaps avoid that sort of conflict. alanyst ^/talk/ 22:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Very well said. I believe it significant to focus on both the person's life as well as legacy. For this article, basically everything should be in summary style, since we have various subarticles for both his life and his legacy. I would add one more thing: reflect important personal facts of the person's life. Details about a person's personal life, such as childhood, marriage, and children, may not be very important to history in general, but they are still important to the article. ...comments? ~BFizz 01:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with everything except the third point. When we try to include a number of various competing perspectives, we have to follow both WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. If there are genuine mainstream competing views, we should absolutely cover all of them, covering the majority view and at least mentioning any significant minority views. However, fringe views are treated differently. Most often, fringe views are not even mentioned, except in specialized articles about the fringe view.

So I'm not saying that fringe views about Joseph Smith (i.e., that he was never a polygamist, or never practiced magic) have no place in Wikipedia. Such views may be presented in specialized articles, but would be rarely mentioned in a biographical article such as this one--and it if they are mentioned, they would have to have some notable link to his contemporary history. For example, we must mention that Smith claimed to have seen an angel in 1823, because that claim itself has momentous historical consequence. COGDEN 05:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

COgden, are you saying that the only non-FRINGE subjective viewpoints are those of the reliable scholars? I'm trying to understand your remarks. alanyst ^/talk/ 14:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe the current wording of point 3 already covers COgden's concerns: "Document the important subjective points of view". Heresay among the faithful or among critics obviously need not be documented. Viewpoints that are clearly expressed in official LDS or CoC literature should probably be documented, though. Smith's own words, whether fringe or not, are obviously relevant to the article and should be documented (as they have been). ...comments? ~BFizz 14:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

In the 'real world' I am an academic (though I state this merely because lecturing is my vocation - I don't claim to be very smart) and I accept that this article needs to be built upon reliable, secondary bona fide sources. However, what it lacks - and I take these points from Storm and Fizz - is much contemporary context other than (mainly) from the perspectives of several key biographers who are, in my opinion, a bit too over-relied upon. I guess what I mean is that I like the article as it has evolved but still feel there is a lack of interesting primary source material - apologetic or otherwise. I fought to keep a lot of it in there, but most was relegated to the footnotes. I do lean towards Storm's opinion that, for whatever reason, the tone of the article is more critical than informative. Regardless of whether my great-grandma's great-grandpa was a complete fraud or a prophet of God, which isn't what is important to me personally, he was still a charismatic guy who had the ability to lead folks and influence generations, making a historical impact. I respect that there are editors whose goal is to paint Smith as a religious icon in the same way there are those who want it stressed he was a fake - however, I don't share either agenda. Best, A Sniper (talk) 20:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

@B Fizz: I think that "fringe" views should be treated as "fringe" views, regardless of whether or not an organization such as the LDS Church or Community of Christ endorses them. We don't really pay attention to organizational endorsements, unless the organization reflects some kind of academic consensus. For example, the official views of the American Historical Association might be worth noting, but not the official views of the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies--it's not that their views are wrong, just that their views are an extreme minority.

@A Sniper: I agree with you that adding primary source material would make the article more interesting. But practically, I don't see how we can do that without excessively ballooning the size of the article, which is already on the large side. I think we have to paint with large brush strokes, which means extensive use of the the secondary sources who have already synthesized the primary material and made generalizations. COGDEN 20:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

COgden, your remarks don't recognize the distinction I've tried to draw. Questions of historical fact should rightfully be answered by reliable historians, as expressed in the secondary sources they produce. The first two bullet points I offered above cover that aspect of a biographical article, both the agreed-upon and disputed questions of fact. But historical fact is not, in my opinion, the only aspect of a person's life that an encyclopedia article should endeavor to address. The third bullet point covers the realm of opinion regarding that person, and in general the notable opinions will not be limited to those of the scholars—they will also belong to the person's significant friends, enemies, the general public (with caveats), and himself or herself. Wikipedia should not endorse anyone's opinion of an article's subject, but ought to describe the important ones. Your examples of fringe views seem to speak to the objective (historical) aspects such as whether he did or said X, not the subjective aspects I meant to cover with that third bullet point such as judgments of his character, intentions, motivations, inbound and outbound influences, and so forth. alanyst ^/talk/ 06:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it depends on what range of opinions you are talking about, and what the purpose of including them is. If it is a fact of Smith's history itself that is included for its notability, then fringe opinions are excluded from the noted range of opinions as to that fact. If the opinion is somehow independently notable as part of Joseph Smith's story, then that would also be included. For example, Martin Harris' opinion of Smith was important to show why Harris became one of the first Mormons. Isaac Hale's opinion of Smith is probably also important, to show the tension with the in-laws. If the opinion relates only to Mormon doctrine, particularly Mormon doctrine that originated after Smith's death, then its relevance to this article is more tenuous than contemporary information. There are plenty of Mormon doctrine articles, but limited space in this article for the tangled, complex array of contradictory post-Smith developments within and without Mormonism. It's better to note the various denominations that are his legacy, include a decent section that summarizes his legacy, and paints his impact with relatively broad brush-strokes, and rely on those sub-articles to explain their intricate doctrines concerning the nature and being of Joseph Smith. COGDEN 08:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

"If the opinion is somehow independently notable as part of Joseph Smith's story, then that would also be included." I feel that several beliefs held generally by Latter Day Saints, or asserted by LDS churches, (though unproven by history) fall into this category of being independently notable, and therefore needful of inclusion in this article. A few non-exhaustive examples: beliefs regarding Smith's first vision, beliefs regarding his reasoning for various doctrines (including polygamy) and actions (such as Zion's Camp), and beliefs regarding his claim to divine authority. Anyone reading this article should, among other things, get a clear picture of what Latter Day Saints generally believe about him. ...comments? ~BFizz 23:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

It depends on how it is presented. If the fringe historical beliefs are presented as competing with standard history, then we have a problem. On the other hand, if the fringe beliefs are somehow a notable part of Smith's standard history, then that's great--we should include it. Also, even if a fringe view has nothing to do with his story, but it notably relates to Smith's legacy, we still might be able to (carefully) include it in the legacy section. COGDEN 03:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

This page's archives

We have previously kept record of this page's archives manually in the infobox near the top of the page. I suggest we switch to using this template: {{archives|search=yes|bot=MiszaBot I|age=14 days}} I've made the change already, but wanted to add this section here to make sure we could discuss it in case anyone is against it. ...comments? ~BFizz 07:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.--John Foxe (talk) 10:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Con artist

Why is the fact that he was tried and convicted of being a con artist being white washed.

"State Of New York v. Joseph Smith"

State court records prove the Smith was arrested in New York in 1826 for being a con artist. "Warrant issued upon written complaint upon oath of Peter G. Bridgeman, who informed that one Joseph Smith of Bainbridge was a disorderly person and an impostor. Prisoner brought before the Court March 20, 1826. Prisoner examined: says that he came from the town of Palmyra ... that he had a certain stone which he occasionally looked at to determine where hidden treasures in the bowels of the earth were; that he professed to tell in this manner where gold mines were a distance under ground ... he pretended to tell by looking at this stone where coined money was buried in Pennsylvania, and while at Palmyra he frequently ascertained in that way where lost property was of various kinds..." (Court records of New York). While the Mormons claimed this never happened, Jerald and Sandra Tanner published the microfilm copies of the court records in 1971, under the title, Joseph Smith's 1826 Trial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.25.6.27 (talk) 21:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Joseph Smith's 1826 trial (microfilm listed on Google Books published by Jerald and Sandra Tanner).

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.25.6.27 (talk) 21:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The article already states in the Early years section that "In 1826, he was tried in Chenango County, New York, for the crime of pretending to find lost treasure." ...comments? ~BFizz 23:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

'Con Artist' is not a very neutral phrase. The fact that it is used reveals the bias we are working against in this article. When will the vicious tone end?

Canadiandy1 (talk) 14:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

"Writer, city planner, military leader, and politician."

Why should these descriptors appear in the second sentence of the lead? They all depend on Smith's founding and leadership of the Latter Day Saint movement. What did Smith write? What city did he ever successfully plan? Weren't his attempts at military leadership and involvement in politics absolute disasters?--John Foxe (talk) 10:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The Introduction to the article should only summarize what is discussed in the article itself. If these topics are not discussed in the article, they don't have a place in the introduction. Does that make sense to the Anon editor? -^StormRider 10:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Smith wrote many things, he successfully founded and planned the city of Nauvoo, he led its militia, and he was a very notable politician as the mayor of Nauvoo and as a U.S. presidential candidate (although he was unable to complete his campaign because he was assassinated). These are all talked about in the article. They were not "absolute disasters," and even if they were, that does not mean that they shouldn't be listed. It could even be mentioned that he was a newspaper editor and a banker, although these are significantly less notable, so their inclusion is debatable. However, the other four (writer, city planner, military leader, and politician) should DEFINITELY be mentioned. Live Light (talk) 14:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

"writer" is an unusual term here, especially since Smith made heavy use of scribes. "city planner", "military leader", and "politician" all refer mostly to the Nauvoo era. I don't see the harm in mentioning the "city planner, military leader, and politician" in the lede where they were; in fact I find them helpful to draw a clearer picture of who Smith was. Most readers wouldn't know that Smith was involved in these things simply from stating he was a "religious leader", and frankly, many readers don't make it past the first paragraph or two. Whether Smith "succeeded" or "failed" in these areas doesn't change the fact that he did indeed do these significant things. ...comments? ~BFizz 15:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I can't think of anything of importance Smith wrote except a non-canonical version of the First Vision. It would be accurate to say he was a "failed city planner, military leader, and politician," but I doubt you folks would let me get away with saying that. As a planned city, Nauvoo was a disaster, built (such of it that was) in a terrible place and never completed. I think no events of Smith's life (beyond his polygamy) got him in more trouble than deciding to be mayor, head of the Nauvoo Legion, and a presidential candidate.--John Foxe (talk) 16:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

It shouldn't matter. Besides, he was not really a "failed" anything. Nauvoo was certainly a successful project and today is a beautiful city that attracts tourists from all over the country. He also planned the construction of the Nauvoo Temple, although it wasn't finished until after his death. And he may have aroused controversy with his involvement in politics and military leadership; that much is true, but it doesn't matter either. He was a well-known and notable politician, and not only because of who he was outside of politics, but simply because of his political views, which were unique for his time and for our time. Do some research on his presidential platform and you will find that it may be appropriate to add a lot of information to the "political views" section (in fact, I may get working on that). As a military leader, he was no failure there either. The Nauvoo Legion was known to be the most formidable concentration of military power in the American West during that time, according to the Legion's Wikipedia article. As such, with Smith as the Lieutenant General, it's certainly notable for "military leader" to be listed. As for writer, he wrote more than just "a non-canonical version of the First Vision." He wrote (not using a scribe) several documents, including complete volumes of Church history and of his own history and teachings (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith), in addition to legal and business records and his own journal entries. These are certainly "of importance.". Live Light (talk) 17:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with virtually everything you've said above. Repeatedly making bellicose noises at wrong moments demonstrated Smith's utter incapacity at military leadership. Nauvoo today is a theme park compared to the Nauvoo of Smith's day, which was a malaria plagued swamp dotted with miserable log cabins. Only Brigham Young could get the Nauvoo Temple completed because Smith was a comparatively poor motivator. Smith certainly did not write the church histories or the Teachings of Joseph Smith the Prophet. None of this matters, of course. The real question is do those adjectives belong in the lede.--John Foxe (talk) 18:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, he did write some Church history volumes and he did write Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith (although it was edited by somebody else). And it doesn't matter that he wasn't the greatest military leader. The fact is that it was notable. Whether you agree or not, Smith is an important figure, and one of the most influential figures, of United States history, and it all stems from everything he did. The Nauvoo Legion was one of the most powerful military groups at the time. He was the leader. Therefore, it should be mentioned. And he was absolutely not a "poor motivator." He was renowned for his ability to effectively teach, capture, and motivate audiences. Do your research please. The point is that yes, they should be mentioned. Live Light (talk) 19:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

It depends on what you mean by "writing." If you mean "rough ideas dictated to various scribes and modified by later editors," that would fit the definition. Otherwise, no. Smith is a notable figure only because he was the founder of the LDS movement; everything else hangs on that fact. So the real question is whether his being a lousy city planner, a cowardly general, and a foolish dabbler in politics is worth mentioning in the lede. I'm amenable to persuasion on everything but the "writer," but I'm not enthusiastic.--John Foxe (talk) 20:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. His involvement in politics was notable (I fail to see how his political views and ideas were "foolish," but whatever), he was a notable military leader ("cowardly" or not), and he planned a city that would become a majorly important city for Latter Day Saints. Also, he is an important figure not only because he founded the LDS movement. He indirectly caused the West to be settled, et cetera. Anyway, I'll agree that "military leader, politician, and city planner" should be listed, probably in that order (most significant to least). Fair enough? Live Light (talk) 21:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

It certainly doesn't matter if the projects failed. The real issue is if it's important enough to be in the lede. I mean, if George Washington collected butterflies, would anyone care? Would anyone care enough for it to be mentioned in the lede on George Washington? Likewise, is/should Joseph Smith be known for being a presidential candidate, or are there a half-dozen things more important? tedder (talk) 17:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

"City planner"? The man is an icon in the religious history of America and you are going to go with "city planner"? Really - you think that is important enough to be in the first sentence of an article on Joseph Smith? Ridiculous. Military leader? He had himself appointed to a minor city militia that never saw action. Politician? This one is a little better of a case, but still - he was mayor of Nauvoo for what like a year or two five years, and that was only because Nauvoo was effectively a theocracy - again dominated by his religious leadership. Author - I get that, the Book of Mormon is widely influential, but even that is disputed by Mormons. And being a "writer" is not what he is known for. Ultimately though I don't have much of an opinion. I could go either way. Just being the Devil's advocate here.--Descartes1979 (talk) 22:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Important enough for the first sentence, no. That one clearly states "religious leader" and "founder": the absolutely most important/basic things to know about him. Important enough for the second sentence, yes. I feel it is important to include "politician" at minimum. earlier, Foxe remarked, "I think no events of Smith's life (beyond his polygamy) got him in more trouble than deciding to be mayor, head of the Nauvoo Legion, and a presidential candidate." This is precisely why I feel these details are also fitting for the second sentence: Smith made enough of a splash in these areas that it eventually led to his death. On a related note, it is a good idea to make a clear connection between Joseph Smith and "Mormonism" early in the lede. The reasoning in this edit summary by Descartes makes a lot of sense to me. ...comments? ~BFizz 22:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The Nauvoo Legion was no "minor city militia that never saw action." It was one of the most powerful militias in the nation at the time and it did indeed see action. Regardless of anything, he was a city planner, military leader, and politician. The lede in a Wikipedia article is to say what a person did. Joseph Smith was more than just a religious leader. He was a highly influential figure of American history. Part of his contribution to American history was being a city planner, military leader, and politician. Ergo, they should be listed in the second sentence. Author is debatable. There is no proof that he was the author of the Book of Mormon. I feel that writer should be mentioned, though. His writings are significant to the Latter Day Saint movement, scripture and otherwise. By the way, the sentence "He was also an author, city planner, military leader, and politician" has been on this article for a LONG time. Why is it just now being removed? 63.248.11.9 (talk) 01:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Serious John Foxe? When I first read your entry I actually thought for a moment that someone might have hacked your account. Very disappointing to see an editor who has been becoming more and more fair minded over the past few months suddenly do an about turn. Sad, really. Are you purposely trying to set the pendulum swinging again? I will give that Joseph Smith might not be a great author, but only if we are willing to accept the premise that the Book of Mormon is actually authored by Ancient prophets of God through revelation. Otherwise, the Book of Mormon is an amazing work of literature, inspired or not.

Disappointedly,

173.180.109.246 (talk) 01:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

Just because he is overwhelmingly notable in one area doesn't mean that other areas of minor notability shouldn't be mentioned in the lede. The question is, if you pretend that Smith didn't found a religion, what else, if anything, would he be notable for? I think there are good cases to be made to include the following in the lede:

• Smith was a writer: He dictated the Book of Mormon, most of the D&C, and a revision of the Bible. Of these, the Book of Mormon is the most notable. In the beginning, he was more notable as the writer of the Book of Mormon than as a religious founder.
• Smith was a town planner: Nobody would doubt that Brigham Young was a notable town planner, but Brigham Young didn't do anything he hadn't learned from Smith. Smith planned Nauvoo, Far West, and Zion (never built, but influential in later Mormon designs). The Mormon school of city planning, which Smith founded, has been a topic of scholarship in its own right. See, e.g, Cecilia Parera, "Mormon Town Planning: Physical and Social Relevance", Journal of Planning History, 4:155-74.
• Smith was a military leader: He led a failed attempt to invade Zion, Missouri, and led a war against the state of Missouri.
• Smith was a politician: He was mayor of Nauvoo, a minor U.S. presidential candidate, and was crowned the king of a shadow government.

COGDEN 02:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The lede does not mention the mainstream view

mainstream view is that joseph smith was a conscious fraud. it is impossible to reconcile his laughable "scriptures" with history and/or common sense. but by all means, don't mention it in your lead, wikipedia; portray him as a "religious leader." lol 99.255.117.65 (talk) 05:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)