Talk:Joseph Smith

"Wary" of Protestant religions?

First, I had a chance to look at the introductory paragraphs. They are so pointedly negative it is shocking. How do we miss this? In this summation of Joseph Smith, and what is important about him, we witness the following key elements,

He founded a movement, was a polygamist, was “wary” of Protestant churches, was influenced by folk religion, used supernatural powers to find buried treasure, organized a Church of Mormons, oversaw financial collapse, incited insurrection, and was tried on capital charges…

Does anyone believe that’s a fair or neutral snapshot of who Joseph Smith was? The bad apple analogy seems to be holding here.

To start with, I would take issue at least with the statement that Joseph Smith was "wary" of Protestant religions. While he was perhaps cautious about joining in with them, it seems he was actually at one point close to joining the Methodists. He writes "In process of time my mind became somewhat partial to the Methodist sect, and I felt some desire to be united with them; but so great were the confusion and strife among the different denominations, that it was impossible for a person young as I was, and so unacquainted with men and things, to come to any certain conclusion who was bright and who was wrong."

Remember, Joseph Smith wrote, "No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join." Now of course we don't get to trust Joseph Smith's own record, but at least this makes the absolute statement that he was "wary" of Protestant religions debatable at best.

It would best be written that "In his early teens Joseph Smith went through a period of religious interest and investigation of the different Protestant faiths in the hopes of determining which was doctrinally correct."

Canadiandy1 (talk) 05:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiandy1 (talk • contribs)

Not to play devil's advocate, but when were Smith's words written? Have they been edited & re-edited over time? Do these words, when written, jibe with contemporary accounts as found in secondary sources? (meaning: is it something he wrote about as an older gentleman or are there accounts that it took place when he was a teen as he suggests?) This is the standard by which we're all held to. Best, A Sniper (talk) 06:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't expect everybody to accept Joseph Smith's words as the only evidence for this position. But when one considers the fact that his parents raised their children in a Christian home and that his mother a sister and two brothers were Presbyterian, common sense would at best suggest there is no definitive evidence for or against his being "wary" of the Protestant faiths. Combine that with what he recorded about the First Vision, and It seems to me that to accept unquestioningly that Joseph was "wary" of these faiths is a stretch at best. 173.180.109.246 (talk) 06:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

Joseph Smith, Sr. was a drinker and antagonistic to organized religion, and his sons Alvin and Joseph sided with him against their mother in religious matters. Joseph's childhood acquaintances uniformly agreed that Joseph wasn't at all religious in his youth, and he didn't come up with the First Vision until late in the 1830s.--John Foxe (talk) 13:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

John Foxe, you state that "Joseph's childhood acquaintances uniformly agreed that Joseph wasn't at all religious in his youth." All of his "acquaintances"? I notice you didn't refer to them as friends. Your sources please? Did these happen to be from that old reliable source of 'some of the locals who at the time were so fair-minded they ran out members of other religions they didn't agree with by burning their homes?' And what is your point in adding that Joseph Smith Sr. was a drinker? Most people back then were drinkers. What does that have to do with anything? Are you implying people who drink can't be Protestant? Your bias is showing. 173.180.109.246 (talk) 14:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

For comments from Joseph's acquaintances about his early non-interest in religion, see the testimonies gathered in the five volumes of Early Mormon Documents, a fine set of primary sources. Richard Bushman says, "Judging from later accounts by the Smiths' neighbors, Joseph's religious struggles were unknown in the village. The publication of the Book of Mormon surprised everyone. The villagers had no idea that the nondescript farm boy who occasionally appeared in town to buy a paper for his father had any ambition or religious character. He seemed slow and 'destitute of genius' or lazy and superstitious. The townspeople who later recorded their memories thought of the family as treasure-seekers, not eager Christians."(35-36)

As for Joseph Smith, Sr., Bushman writes that he "may have partially abdicated family leadership. 'I have not always set that example before my family that I ought,' he confessed in 1834. Speaking of himself in the third person, he gratefully told Hyrum that 'though he has been out of the way through wine, thou has never forsaken him nor laughed him to scorn.' Joseph Sr.'s drinking was not excessive for that time and place; only two of the hostile affidavits collected in 1833 mentioned it. But he feared his sons' scornful laughter....By the standard measures of success in a rural society, he had failed. Even his dreamy yearning for religion had led to nothing; he felt he had let his children down. 'I have not been diligent in teaching them the commandments of the Lord,' he admitted, 'but have rather manifested a light and trifling mind.' All the boys loved and honored their father, Joseph Jr. particularly, but their affection may have included sympathy for a life blighted by shame."(42)--John Foxe (talk) 16:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding "wary": the article body does a better job of explaining the precise situation, and while it's an important detail of Smith's accounts of the First Vision and visitations from angel Moroni, it's not really critical to the overview of Smith's life. I've edited the detail out of the lede. ...comments? ~BFizz 19:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Because the lede references the influence of folk religion, I think it is also important for completeness to say something about the complementary influence of Protestant Christianity. Whether or not the "wary" phrasing is the best option, i don't know, but I think we should at least note in the lede that he was was interested in the Christian controversies of his day, but skeptical of organized religion. I think the secondary sources thoroughly support that. COGDEN 20:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, BFizz. Thanks, COgden.

@COgden. I would suggest he was not merely interested but intrigued. I still don't see him skeptical of organized religion as much as he was questioning and exploring them. 'Skeptical' has a negative connotation and I believe he was sincerely hopeful he would find the right one. I would suggest perhaps that he was troubled by them and their incongruencies. Canadiandy1 (talk) 23:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

I'm only concerned with secondary sources, not what any of us suppose was in JSJr's head. Perhaps 'wary' isn't the right word. However, I would caution against lifting things directly from some published accounts of 'Joseph's words' as I've seen some that have been sanitized heavily over the years - comparisons between original publications and subsequent editions that remove any references that would paint JSJr in a lesser light. In addition, with the probability that early events were perhaps embellished or altered by the man himself in later years, the current narrative is probably not accurate as physical history. We therefore need to base this on secondary works and not what we supposed JSJr thought as a boy. Best, A Sniper (talk) 23:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree there are limits to knowing what was in Smith's head, but there are some conclusions that the secondary sources draw, based on the entire historical record, which are not controversial. What about something like this:

"Smith was raised in western New York during a period of religious enthusiasm. His family was engaged with and divided by the Christian controversies of his day, but he was not happy with any particular religious tradition. He was also influenced by folk religion, and as a young man was recognized..."

However we express it, I think the secondary sources are in agreement that during his adolescence, Smith was not ultimately happy with any of the Protestant traditions to which he was exposed. The extent, if any, that he purposefully investigated different denominations is unknown (except for Methodism) so I don't think there's any certain theory on that presented by the secondary sources. COGDEN 00:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

There are really two sides to Smith's views of the existing churches. On the one hand, he says that he was told personally by Jesus Christ himself that these other churches were "all wrong" and that their leaders and intellectuals were corrupt. Smith's position then was that the existing churches were all apostate. However, on the other hand, he also said, "Have the Presbyterians any truth? Yes. Have the Baptists, Methodists, etc., any truth? Yes. They all have a little truth mixed with error. We should gather all the good and true principles in the world and treasure them up, or we shall not come out true “Mormons.”" So while avoiding anything in their doctrines which was apostate, he believed in trying to gather what was good and true in all different traditions together, while discarding what was bad and false. Calling Latter Day Saintism a hodgepodge of theologies isn't a criticism but, in some ways, an accurate description. --BenMcLean (talk) 15:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Fanny Alger

Two editors have tried to disguise an important aspect of Joseph Smith's career—his immoral relationship with Fanny Alger. (I have no intention of using the word "immoral" in the article itself, but that's exactly what it was.) My opponents need to explain why they wish to cover up this episode that reflects so negatively on the character of Joseph Smith.--John Foxe (talk) 15:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC).

Tried to disguise? That is ridiculous. Two words, John: undue weight. So now you're talking in terms of immoral and fellow editors as opponents? Time to take a break from editing ;) Best, A Sniper (talk) 16:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

John. You wrote that your "Opponents... wish to cover up this episode." It looks like you are in a negative and unbalanced focus at present. Perhaps a step back for a while. Canadiandy1 (talk) 23:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

No undue weight is given. The episode speaks to the lack of character and untrustworthiness of Joseph Smith. We don't cover up evidence at Wikipedia. As Cowdery said, this was a "dirty, nasty, filthy affair," and it needs to be included—even emphasized in my opinion. I make no apologies. Remove this information and you are not only my opponent but the opponent of the NPOV ideal that Wikipedia stands for.--John Foxe (talk) 18:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

At this point I have personally lost confidence that John Foxe is trying to keep his personal opinions separate from his editing. "Lack of character and untrustworthiness" are personal opinions and efforts to promote them in this article are no more appropriate than efforts to promote an opinion of Smith's integrity and kindness would be. alanyst 18:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Please, John. We all have times when we get too focused or emotional. I think you are doing both your credibility and the article a disservice. Step back, take some time for yourself, and come back when you are at your best. Canadiandy1 (talk) 23:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

Even the current wording is rather odd. He "may have married"? The truth is he either did or he didn't. Probabilistic words like "may" and "chance that" work well when talking about unknowable future events, but don't work as well for disputed (but theoretically knowable) past events. But I can't think of a better way to phrase it at the moment.

Regarding the "immoral relationship with Fanny Alger". Did Smith marry Fanny Alger? Historians generally (but not universally) conclude "yes", based on various primary sources. Did Smith have sexual relations with Fanny Alger? , Bushman notes that Cowdery was the only one to publicly accuse Smith of immoral behavior. So from a Wikipedia standpoint, it seems obvious that we include the "married" detail (where there is at least enough evidence for historians to start asserting a POV) but exclude the "immoral relationship" detail (where historians generally avoid asserting a POV due to lack of evidence). In specialized articles, there is obviously more room to discuss both points.

As a slightly off-topic note, surely Foxe does not propose that we to take everything Cowdery said as the truth? Otherwise we would also have to accept his statement as one of the Three Witnesses, which I'm sure Foxe does not accept. Foxe, you seem very convinced that you know exactly what happened during "the episode", but the truth is, historians are grasping at straws to put the story together. How can such a poorly-evidenced event speak to anything about Smith's character? The original wording casts Cowdery as "one of the few that knew about the relationship", a sort of insider's look into the secret life of Smith. On the other hand, Bushman takes the opposite approach and states he was the "only one who accused"; basically asserting that despite the rumors wildly flying around, no one except Cowdery actually substantiated the claim. Bushman even seems to imply that Cowdery was jumping to conclusions, and had not witnessed anything; that Cowdery believed his own accusations, although he didn't base them on sound evidence. ...comments? ~BFizz 18:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Bushman gives Alger her own subhead and four pages of text. He notes that "her story was recorded as many as sixty years later by witnesses who had strong reason to take sides. Surprisingly, they all agree that Joseph married Fanny Alger as a plural wife." Bushman says that Alger never admitted to the marriage but then he also says she "had no trouble remarrying." My opinion is that Smith's relationship to Alger was exactly what Cowdery said it was, a "dirty, nasty, filthy affair." Obviously I can't prove that on the basis of Cowdery's testimony alone, but it's important to make sure that Smith's unconventional behavior, which reflects on his character and suggests his general untrustworthiness, is clearly delineated in the article.--John Foxe (talk) 20:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

That's just it, Foxe: your opinion (POV) makes no difference. Frankly, I am rather shocked by the tone of your notes - a change recently. I remember someone once speculating that you and Duke53 were in fact the same person - a sort of yin & yang, good cop/bad cop. I thought the very notion silly. But now you seem so dramatic, so OTT. Opponents? Merely because I mentioned undue weight? Perhaps you think you own the article and take it seriously that if it deviates from your own narrative and your own mindset, it can't be tolerated. All we suggested was that the bit be shortened and that the content be shifted to a footnote or another article dealing with polygamy or the founding of the church. Drawing lines in the sand doesn't help anyone, unless you're wanting an admin involved. Best, A Sniper (talk) 23:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm fully aware that my opinion makes little difference in the actual editing of the article. We as editors can't go beyond evidence; and in the nineteenth century, it was uncommon for folks to parade their vices before the public. Nevertheless, I feel morally obligated to let all the regulars here know how I feel about this episode: that regardless of whether Smith considered this dalliance with Alger a "marriage," his affair with her was immoral, it betrayed his wife Emma, and it reflects negatively on his character and trustworthiness. On this issue, I do draw a line in the sand.--John Foxe (talk) 10:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The Fanny Alger issue is certainly a notable element of Smith's history, which is always given prominent treatment in any discussion of plural marriage. The dispute between Smith and Cowdery regarding Alger is also an important reason why Cowdery, who was practically the co-founder of the Latter Day Saint movement, defected from Smith's movement in the late 1830s. Therefore, I don't think we can minimize the issue. But the issue is not whether Smith's relationship with Alger was "immoral". Whether Smith's polygamous practices were moral or immoral is not a question that Wikipedia can answer. The "nasty affair" allegation is only relevant because it was one of the accusations made by Cowdery, and one of the reasons why he left the church. I don't think we necessarily need to quote Cowdery's exact inflammatory language, as long as we note that Cowdery believed Smith's polygamous relationship with Alger was immoral.

Also, while the preponderance of more recent scholars think that Smith developed the justification for polygamy before he entered a plural relationship with Alger, and that he probably had a marriage ceremony to mark their joinder, some scholars (like Brodie) take the opposite view, that Smith had a relationship with Alger before developing or understanding the religious justification for that relationship. So the language in this article ought to be compatible with both possibilities. COGDEN 22:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Notability is a relative issue; for critics of Joseph Smith it has been a wonderful bit of fat to chew since the beginning while for others it is at best an unremarkable "nonevent", i.e. it really does not matter relative to everything else that went on during his life. The value of an individual's life is not made up simply of those things critics find interesting, but rather those things that made the individual remarkable in history. The article does a better job of covering the major points critics enjoy hearing about and fails to really inform readers why this individual is worthy of historical note.

Is the purpose of the article to satisfy the interests only of critics or is it more important to focus on why Smith is important? If this one question were asked for every sentence in the article we all would find a drastically different article. Rabid critics would cry foul, POV, etc., but their complaints only legitimize their desire for a very twisted article. Frankly, I see no need to always cater to a single view point - no other religion article uses this lens - why this one? Because Evangelicals are so loud in their complaint? Or is it that Mormons are so willing to comply to the whims of critic? Or, more likely, Wikipedia articles are controlled by those that care the most that their POV be heard and enforced? Unfortunately, the last statement would seem the most likely reason and it is also the problem of a public forum for writing articles. At the end of the day, I have come to accept that it is just best to grin and bear it; shake my head in disgust; and look for other ways to spend my precious time. -^StormRider 12:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

When a person claiming to be sent from God to restore primitive Christianity has an affair with an adolescent girl in his household, the occasion can be described as a "non-event" only by those who have closed their minds to the testimony of a man's life.--John Foxe (talk) 15:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

If Smith had never advocated plural marriage, his relationship with Alger (despite her age--this is the 1830s, so 15 year olds were considered much older than they are today) would just be a run-of-the-mill affair that would deserve about the same amount of attention that the affairs of anybody else during that time period would have. In other words, it might just have been little more than a footnote. But this was not just an affair. Alger was Smith's first plural wife by several years, and her marriage is integrally important to the development of the plural marriage doctrine. The relationship also played a role, behind the scenes, in the 1838 collapse of the church in Kirtland. COGDEN 18:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

"Nature of reliable sources"

This is in response to conflicting edits.

Ah-hem. Please explain what could possibly be more reliable to document what a man's claims about himself are than books the man published himself? There can't be any more direct, reliable sources than someone's own published words for anything, ever! --BenMcLean (talk) 15:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect,with all regular editors coming from different backgrounds, the way we've been doing this to adhere to NPOV is by consensus. Your edits, and that of the IP, include references to non-scholarly works and websites. Best, A Sniper (talk) 16:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Wait, you're saying we can't cite primary sources, but have to rely in the reinterpretations of some scholar rather than citing a person's own words to establish their claims about themselves? --BenMcLean (talk) 16:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. It often sounds peculiar to folks who are new to the encyclopedia, but Wikipedia privileges secondary sources over primary ones. At Wikipedia, articles must be based on "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy....Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources." So at Wikipedia, Joseph Smith's testimony about himself is disallowed except insofar as it confirms such secondary sources as the scholarly biographies of Fawn Brodie and Richard Bushman.--John Foxe (talk) 16:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

OK. But you and A Sniper didn't just say my sources are no good, you said my edit is POV. What is POV about it? Does anyone seriously dispute that Smith made these claims about himself or that these claims are among the most significant and noteworthy features of his life? I haven't read these biographies but couldn't you or someone else who has, look up where it is covered in these biographies that he did in fact make these claims about himself? --BenMcLean (talk) 16:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The issues with your edit:

• Obscure source
• Specifying The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (while it's true he was the first president of the LDS church, the same can be said of the Community of Christ and other (smaller) Latter Day Saint denominations.)
• Giving details, like precise dates, that aren't really needed in the summarizing lead section

However, it wouldn't hurt to mention in the lede that Smith claimed to translate the BoM "by the gift and power of God". That detail, I do think, is enlightening for the quick overview of Smith's life. Noting the claim to restoring the priesthood wouldn't hurt either. ...comments? ~BFizz 18:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

As to adding "by the gift and power of God", I don't think that exact text is appropriate, because it is a bit euphemistic. (He doesn't say what his "gift" was: divination with a seer stone.) The central point is that he claimed to translate by a supernatural or miraculous process, rather than through scholarship. I think that the present text at least strongly implies that already, and it is further explained in the body of the article. I hesitate to provide more detail in the lede than what already exists. COGDEN 19:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I just think it important to note that Smith claimed that God both 1) mandated that he translate the BoM, and 2) enabled him to do so. As far as I am aware, he claimed neither of these things when treasure hunting with seer stones. In our overview text, we need to make a distinction that when Smith produced the BoM, it was a religious (God-related) claim, in contrast to his previous treasure-hunting activity. Possible edit:

"After publishing what he said was an English translation of the plates as the Book of Mormon,"

=>

"Claiming that God had empowered him to translate the plates to English, he published his translation as the Book of Mormon. Soon after,"

...comments? ~BFizz 19:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I myself consider myself to be a follower of Joseph Smith III and the claim of the original Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is that it is the legitimate continuation of the original Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints of the 1830s. I thought that adding the word "original" before the name of the church would be POV because it would imply that the present day LDS church is not the original church and that would be promoting my own (and Joseph Smith III's) position over other positions. No one disputes that the church of the 1830s was called "the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" and that Joseph Smith Jr. was it's founder, not even the RLDS. But asserting in a Wikipedia article that there is a difference between "the original" and the present day would be POV. Adding "the original" would fit my own views better but I'm not sure it would be NPOV. --BenMcLean (talk) 18:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

. Uh, I dispute the name of the church, Ben. 1830: Church of Christ. 1834: Church of the Latter Day Saints. 1838: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. 1830s = several names, and not a hyphen in sight ;) Best, A Sniper (talk) 19:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Admin Needed

I think it is time that we again grab an admin to supervise. Foxe is no longer editing fairly - ownership issues? Now it is a moral crusade to expose JSJr as an immoral bastard. Is that really our role as editors - to be on a crusade? This whole thing started with the issue of undue weight. Now it is a revert war by an editor on a POV mission. Best, A Sniper (talk) 16:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd be happy to have an outside administrator render his opinion.--John Foxe (talk) 16:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I've protected the page because of the edit warring/content dispute. Issues of ownership and POV are done through consensus, not by an administrator. I think you all know the proper channels for this; WP:DR is a starting point. tedder (talk) 16:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for stepping in.--John Foxe (talk) 20:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

If it's about consensus, there seems to be a strong consensus that John Foxe is on a biased moral crusade at the moment. I don't question his ability to add good input into the article discussion at times, but I think we are trying to protect John Foxe from himself right now. If we are to take his crusade of late as reflective of his entire aim in contributing, we will have an awful lot of work to do to reedit the article based on his biased influence on its present state. I had actually considered whether his account had been hacked, until I saw some of his source knowledge which is not likely to be held by an inexperienced hacker. I'm trying to be fair-minded here, but this is over the edge stuff. Perhaps a discussion/editing freeze until cooler heads can prevail? Canadiandy1 (talk) 00:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

Opening sentence

I'm not sure how to pursue this but I think the opening sentence seems to make him much more moderate and unimportant than he really claimed to be. The introductory paragraphs as they currently stand fail to adequately explain Joseph Smith Jr's relevance as a religious figure, giving undue weight to his political ambitions while minimizing what made him remarkable: his supernatural claims. It seems to me to give more weight to his influences than to his influence. Whatever political offices he held or other practices he had, his primary historical relevance is his role as translator of the Book of Mormon, restorer of the priesthood, "prophet seer and revelator" and president of the church. In addition to the text I suggested, I think the second sentence also ought to mention that he was a candidate for president of the United States and that he was assassinated in 1844. --BenMcLean (talk) 16:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Ben, when the protection is lifted from the page in mid-May, we can all begin editing again without the hot heads. However, this must be based on secondary sources. I agree with John Foxe on that point - that it must adhere to third party, bona fide references. I reverted your edits because they did not contain adequate sources. You also referred to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which is incorrect. And 'general authority'? In a controversial article such as this, every edit has to be carefully made - we work by consensus here. You'll note that the main biographies of JSJr are indeed used as references throughout. Best, A Sniper (talk) 16:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Have you read these biographies? Anyone here who has read any decent biography of Joseph Smith should be able to cite that biography to confirm all of the points I added. --BenMcLean (talk) 16:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I would assume that most of us who work on this article possess the most popular of Smith biographies, even with our differing backgrounds and points of view. Remember that we're not writing a tract or apologetic text - this is an online encyclopedia. Everything must have a bona fide reference. Best, A Sniper (talk) 16:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not talking about defending the validity of the man's claims, only the necessity of stating what they, in fact, were - not whether they're true. Wikipedia has to maintain a neutral stance and I think it's failing to do so here by not accurately representing what is notable here. --BenMcLean (talk) 17:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• Candidate for President - while it is an impressive detail, the reality is, it is an obscure detail at the end of his life; had he not been killed so soon after announcing his candidacy, it would be much more relevant. It is mentioned later in the lede, which I believe is sufficient.
• Assassinated - it wasn't exactly an assassination, it was mob violence, which is less carefully planned and executed.

However, mentioning he was murdered in the first few sentences is not out of the question. The first paragraph is where the absolutely essential details about this man should go, and his murder is certainly a critical detail about his life. Perhaps we could insert a third sentence, something vaguely similar to this: "Smith's extraordinary claims to religious authority were polarizing: believers adored him and considered him a prophet, while dissenters criticized, brutalized, and eventually murdered him." ...comments? ~BFizz 18:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmmmmmmmmmm.... I personally am rather inclined to think that the murder of Joseph Smith Jr. by the mob was a somewhat planned out affair. The mob came there specifically to kill Joseph Smith which is why they came to be in the place they were - I don't think it was a spur of the moment thing. Mob violence tends to be somewhat indiscriminate in it's destruction, while assassination is "to murder (a usually prominent person) by a sudden and/or secret attack, often for political reasons." (It wasn't secret but it certainly was sudden) and an additional definition is "the act of deliberately killing someone especially a public figure, usually for hire or for political reasons" and it definitely was deliberate and it definitely was a public figure. I'd say there is substantial overlap between assassination and mob violence. But whether we could agree on that or not, we certainly must agree that it was a "murder" and not merely a "killing." --BenMcLean (talk) 19:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

There's not really a good word to describe Smith's killing. Was he assassinated? Lynched? Murdered? Killed in action? There are elements of truth in all these words, but none are perfect. Killed is probably the most generic word. COGDEN 19:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Though murdered implies intent to kill, and is otherwise almost equally generic. The mob certainly did not show up with guns blazing, not intending to kill JSJr. ...comments? ~BFizz 19:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

One other non-genericity about wikt:murdered, it also implies a criminal or unlawful act, which is also true here. ...comments? ~BFizz 19:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, BFizz. I am fine with killed as it is at least neutral. But in reality the mob did show up with guns blazing. They stormed the jail with guns and fired into a locked room. So I think murdered (maybe not by each mob member, but by the mob collectively) is appropriate. Canadiandy1 (talk) 00:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

Need bibliography section

There also ought to be a bibliography section of books that he wrote himself, because in addition to publishing what he claimed to be revelations from God, Smith also published works written on his own behalf (expressing his own private opinions) such as this book here. --BenMcLean (talk) 16:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Ben, this article has an exhaustive list of material contained within. In the early days of my editing this article, I tried inserting all manner of primary source material - direct refs to Times and Seasons, Millennial Star, Nauvoo Neighbor, etc. - similar to the collection of letters you've mentioned - this unfortunately must take a backseat to secondary, scholarly works as per the rules of Wikipedia. Best, A Sniper (talk) 16:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

No no no, I'm not talking about citing these works, I'm only talking about listing them because Joseph Smith was an author, and Wikipedia pages for authors do typically include bibliographies. --BenMcLean (talk) 17:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

This idea has come up in the past, and has received no strong opposition, iirc. One reason for avoiding it is to avoid the issue of whether to attribute the Book of Mormon as Joseph Smith's own work. But that can be overcome; a bibliography section isn't a bad idea. ...comments? ~BFizz 18:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I do see your point. Joseph Smith Jr's relationship to the Book of Mormon is somewhat unique and very problematic to describe in terms of linguistics. If we call him the "translator" of the Book of Mormon as he claims to be, we are discounting the theories that he is a liar, while if we describe him as it's "publisher" we are being flatly inaccurate because he was not, in fact, it's publisher. Egbert Grandin was the Book of Mormon's first publisher. If we call him the Book of Mormon's "author" then we're discounting his essential claim that he did not write it but only translated it "by the power of God." It is a very knotty problem to find a term that is ambigious enough so as not to commit iteslf to any of these conflicting views.

However, for those books and articles for which it is undisputed that Joseph Smith Jr. was definitely the principal author, there should be no problem with a bibliography section. Perhaps there should be separate sections for "alleged revelations" and simple bibliography. --BenMcLean (talk) 19:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Good idea Ben. I have no idea how anyone could have a neutrality problem with a simple list of Smith's publications. The Book of Mormon is already mentioned prominently in the article, so it could be left out. Or leave it in, I'm fine either way. Canadiandy1 (talk) 00:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

In principle I don't oppose this, but is there enough material for a meaningful list? There are only three self-contained works I can think of that he published under his own name: the Book of Mormon, the D&C, and his 1844 political pamphlet. There are a few editorial articles, if you'd want to include those, such as a defense of slavery he published over his name in 1836, a Q&A from the Elder's Journal, and maybe a couple others. I guess you could include posthumously published works such as the Book of Abraham, his revision of the Bible, and his history (which he didn't actually write, except for a small part at the beginning). COGDEN 11:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Using the handy archive search box at the top of the page, I found this short discussion we had a little while ago. Nobody really latched onto the idea at the time. Talk:Joseph_Smith,_Jr./Archive_16#Bibliography. ...comments? ~BFizz 19:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

What about the Wentworth letter? I suspect there were a number of other letters to editors. They are only on volume one of his papers. Even if it's short, why is that a problem? I bet we'd hear grumbling if it was too long. --Canadiandy talk 20:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

POV

Here is my issue: This article sounds as if John Foxe here is merely trying to expose Smith as an immoral fraud. It downplays on the positive aspects of Smith's life and emphasizes things that would seem "strange" to non-LDS people, as if John Foxe is trying to convince people that Smith was a liar and a conartist with a Wikipedia article. As a Latter-day Saint and a studier of Church history, I am fully aware of Joseph Smith's life and teachings, and many, many parts of this article are dreadfully and severely misleading. This whole thing needs to be fixed by somebody who is not completely biased against the church (like John Foxe obviously is). My other issue is that John Foxe seems to believe that this is his article; whenever information is added to it, he reverts the edit without offering an explanation, especially when the information puts Joseph in a positive light. John Foxe is obviously uncomfortable with having such information on here for whatever reason. 63.248.11.9 (talk) 17:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I personally have a problem with bias or POV of any kind at Wikipedia, pro-LDS or anti. NPOV is the key - that the article is written by consensus using secondary sources. If you wish to edit based on the rules of Wikipedia, that's fine with me. If you're agenda-driven, that is problematic. Best, A Sniper (talk) 17:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be "agenda-driven." My problem is that John Foxe is deleting any kind of material that puts Joseph Smith in a positive light, and in doing it seems as if he is claiming ownership of this article, which he has no right to do. I am not saying that this article should be flooded with pro-LDS material, but it needs to be more balanced. The negative bias in this article is very apparent. 63.248.11.9 (talk) 17:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

One of the problems I find on Wikipedia pages that deal with any controversial subjects (notably the debate among the American public over the Darwinian and Neo-Darwinian hypothesis and perceived academic elitism) is that they are constantly tripping over themselves to discredit controversial ideas even before the nature of the ideas being criticized are adequately explained or defined. I think this is the problem here. In the article on John F. Kennedy, a primarily political figure, his Presidency and his assassination are covered in the opening paragraph. His adultery is not. Joseph Smith Jr. is a primarily religious figure, but his polygamy is in the opening paragraph and his assassination is not. This seems inconsistent. --BenMcLean (talk) 17:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that is exactly consistent. For a political figure, their runs for office and assassination are usually some of the most notable elements of their history. For Joseph Smith, a religious figure, the most notable elements of his history are of a religious nature, such as polygamy and other doctrines, theocracy, his revelations, any religious or magico-religious influences, and his primarily religious legacy. Non-religious elements of his story, like his run for president and assassination, are also important, but not quite as important as they would be in an article such as the JFK article.COGDEN 00:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey, Ben. I agree with most of what you are saying here, but it's important not to try to take on John Foxe or any other contributors. That is counterproductive to improving the article. Remember, time is on the side of truth. Be patient. The biggest problem right now is that the only people involved in the editing here have huge POV issues (on both sides). Granted, some are able to put those aside and aim for fairness, and some are less willing to do so. I dream of the day we can all drop out of this one because the contributors will be focused on both respect AND reliable evidence. In that dream none of the contributors have an agenda to push or slag any religion. Even tough I'd never have voted for the guy even if I could have, I nominate Bill Clinton (a fiscally responsible Democrat). A moderate. Not too educated, not too stupid. Not too left, not too right. Canadiandy1 (talk) 02:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

Incompleteness of citation 20

The quotation in cite 20 is misleading. It is misleading because it omits surrounding information from the original source which directly qualifies the portion of text which is being quoted. The qualifying surrounding information from the original source states: "In making this confession no one need suppose me guilty of any great or malignant sins. A disposition to commit such was never in my nature." This information is necessary to qualify Joseph's own use of the words "Corruption, foibles, temptations, appetites".

If adding the qualifying information seems to make the citation too long or cumbersome to read, then I suggest the quotation be removed completely.

Do it right, or don't do it at all. - Dan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.39.227 (talk) 16:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The part of the note including the deletions and insertions seems out of place, and I would suggest removing it:

Smith et al. (Richards, p. 5) (writing that he "displayed the weakness of youth and the corruption foibles of human nature, which I am sorry to say, led me into divers temptations to the gratification of many appetites offensive in the sight of God, deletions and interlineations in original);"

It looks like an attempt to draw attention to Smith's changing the account to seem less severe; such an attempt would be better suited either in the article body or in a subarticle.

Furthermore, part of the same footnote says this:

Smith (1994, pp. 17–18) (arguing that his prayer related to a sexual sin).

However, I checked the source (conveniently available as a pdf: Nauvoo Roots of Mormon Polygamy) but could not find this argument anywhere. I suggest removing this as well. If anyone is opposed to these removals, please speak up. Otherwise I'll ask an admin to perform the edit. ...comments? ~BFizz 19:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a COGDEN footnote; maybe you could check with him before you delete. Eliminating the quotation is no problem for me.--John Foxe (talk) 19:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Since the article quotes Smith's own language of "gratification of many appetites", my personal preference is to quote the full original sentence in the footnote. Actually, the best quotation would be the original text, without the insertions and deletions, which were probably added in much later by someone other than Smith (maybe Willard Richards). But I have no strong objection to omitting the full sentence and just leaving "gratification of many appetites" in the main body with citations to the secondary sources, I don't think we lose anything other than the rich and interesting flavor of Smith's original confession. I would still leave the primary source as a citation even without the larger quote, to show where the cited language came from.

As to adding the part about Smith not having committed any "great or malignant sins," I have some concerns about adding that. This language was not in the original text, or in the version published in Times and Seasons by Joseph Smith in April 1842 when Smith himself was the editor of that newspaper. The "great and malignant sins" language was added by Willard Richards around 1842-43, and I'm not aware of any scholarly evidence indicating that Smith was personally involved in Richards' work on the Documentary History. It's likely that Richards composed it. In any event, this is one of the difficulties in citing primary sources on Wikipedia. If we include more of the quote than merely "gratification of many appetites," I think it should be a very strict and literal quotation of the original text, without any added material that might not be Smith's words.

As to the Smith (1994) reference, you are right that there is an error in this citation. It should be to Smith's 2008 book, rather than his 1994 Dialogue article. Other than the incorrect date, the citation is correct.

The article quotes "gratification of many appetites". The citation quotes "gratification of many appetites" crossed-out. This is facially inconsistent. Moreover, the sentence in the article is long and complex. The most logical solution is to remove both instances of the quote and replace the quote found in the article with a simple word like "sins". This solution would both solve the inconsistency and remove some complexity from the sentence. Additionally, the use of the word "sins" (a genus) conveys any and all meaning which is originally conveyed with the phrase "gratification of many appetites" (a species of the genus). -Dan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.169.142.110 (talk) 22:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate COGDEN's elucidation of footnote 20.

Let me suggest that the phrase "while praying for forgiveness from his 'gratification of many appetites'" be dropped and that the footnote 20 material be added to footnote 21. At the least, the words "Smith said" should precede the "while praying" phrase; we don't want to imply that we know what Smith was praying about or that he was praying at all for that matter.--John Foxe (talk) 14:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the "Smith said" and "while praying" need to be (at least) reordered for clarity. I also agree that the "while praying for forgiveness" phrase could be dropped: it's a minor (though interesting) detail in Smith's Angel Moroni / Book of Mormon claims. ...comments? ~BFizz 03:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the idea is important that Smith framed his Angel Moroni vision in the context of his personal worthiness and struggle with personal sin. Maybe this can be expressed better than it is presently, but there has been a fair amount written about Smith's early struggles with sin and feelings of unworthiness. It's a small point, but I think it ought to be made, to give the reader context as to his personality. We don't necessarily need to quote Smith's own words, though. COGDEN 05:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

First Vision Caption

I just had a chance to check out the present status of the caption of the First Vision image (stained glass). It now reads that, "Smith's later theology described Jesus and God the Father as two distinct physical beings." Why is it any time I look into the wording of this article it seems there is a subtle, tongue-in-cheek, tone of cynicism? I accept the position that some believe his theology changed, but this is debatable at best and not known. Yes, it will be argued, in his later life his theology was 'X' but the syntax here implies that it changed, which is not known, only speculated. And speculation should be referenced or we are pushing POV.

Can we simply drop the word 'later'?--Canadiandy talk 01:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiandy1 (talk • contribs)

All authorities, Mormon and non-Mormon, agree that Smith's theology changed. If you can find a WP:RS that says not, simply cite it.--John Foxe (talk) 01:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

If you mean to say all authorities you have studied agree that there are different statements over time by Joseph Smith, you may actually be right. Even then, there is sufficient discussion and debate to make it impossible to know beyond any doubt whether this is the case, and so it seems POV to state this speculated 'change' as fact. Additionally, imperative statements are quite uncalled for (i.e. "If you can find a WP:RS that says not, simply cite it)." Good etiquette suggests that you use declarative or interrogative statements. For example, "If you can find a source that says not, I would invite you to use it." I have pretty thick skin, generally, but I am sure there are others who would not be so comfortable. Oh yeah, I'd like to look into some of these "Mormon" authors. Besides Brodie and Bushman who are the other "Mormon" authorities who promote the changing theology theory?--Canadiandy talk 05:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiandy1 (talk • contribs)

In the discussions above, I've provided a long list of reliable secondary sources on this point, both Mormon and non-Mormon. That Smith's theology changed is not controversial. I think the onus is on you to find reliable sources supporting the unorthodox view your are putting forward. COGDEN 06:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

COgden, I was more interested in who besides Bushman (selected because he is the rare (token?) Mormon focused on finding fault with Joseph Smith) and Brodie (as Mormon as Luther was Catholic)or, laughably, Widmer, you are identifying as "Mormon" authorities. And yes, the theory that Joseph Smith's theology changed may not be controversial, but lack of controversy does not make something known. There is no onus on me no matter how many times you say it. The onus is on the authorities to prove (not just agree on a collective theory) that Joseph Smith's theology "changed". I'm not expecting anyone to write that Joseph Smith's theology didn't change, that would be a biased expectation and unfair. But, vice versa, to push as an unquestionable fact the position that Joseph Smith's theology "evolved" or changed is likewise opinion (regardless of whether it is the dominant opinion of authoritative scholars or not) and should likewise be prefaced as opinion or speculation. Oh yeah, I'm having a hard time finding your list, could you repost?--Canadiandy talk 07:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiandy1 (talk • contribs)

LDS Church Historian Leonard Arrington wrote in The Mormon Experience (1979) about the King Follett sermon (1844): "To believers such ideas provided a challenging vision of their relationship to God and their own eternal potential. But to those outside of Nauvoo who heard rumors of the strange new doctrines they seemed the worst kind of blasphemy."--John Foxe (talk) 18:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

@Canadiandy, it doesn't matter how many of the authors I cited (now in Archive 17) are Mormon. But I think most of them happen to be. I could be mistaken, but I think all the authors I cited are Mormon, except except Jan Shipps, who is a Methodist. So that would inlcude Bushman, Alexander, Kirkland, Ostler, White, Widmer, Charles, Hale, and Thomas. COGDEN 18:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

COgden. I am looking for a justification for why the article at present is pointedly crusading to make the point that it is a certainty that Joseph Smith's theology changed. Your comment seems to point out only that some LDS members had a hard time with the KFS which focused on God's having once had a mortal existence. This does not conflict with Joseph Smith's earlier statements about God having both a spirit and a body. If you ask me to describe a car and I tell you it was a red Mustang, and then when you ask me later about the interior I tell you it had grey bucket seats, did my testimony change? A lawyer could argue it did, but a fair judge would say, 'no.' The testimony is consistent. But I see you have a lot invested in keeping 'later' in the caption and defaming Joseph Smith, so I will voice my protest and move on.--Canadiandy talk 05:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

All WP:RS scholars of Mormonism understand that Joseph Smith's theology about the nature of God changed. My quotation from Arrington above was intended to demonstrate that even an LDS Church Historian believed this to be true. Musings about red Mustangs can't substitute for citable evidence to the contrary.--John Foxe (talk) 10:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

JohnFoxe. I thought my red mustang analogy was quite clear and appropriate. If you are uncomfortable with it you could just say so. But disrespectfully labeling it a "musing" simply supports the arguments elsewhere that you are trying to control this article. Still, the onus is on you to prove (not merely support your belief) that Joseph Smith's later testimony irrefutably contradicted his earlier testimony. That is the only way you can prove what you want to label as a "change" or even an "evolution" in theology. That he revealed further detail does not justify calling his theology "changed." Regardless of how some Church members, critics, or even academics feel about it, if you are publishing it as fact you will need to provide irrefutable evidence and proof, not just the commonly held academic theory. Commonly held theory is not necessarily the same as fact.--Canadiandy talk 13:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

@Canadiandy And that is why Wikipedia policy often seems strange to people. Wikipedia isn't a place for facts. It's a place to express commonly held academic theory (and sometines, notable less-commonly held academic theory).

@Foxe Don't confuse statements about what the church generally believed to be synonymous with what Smith generally believed. No scholars pretend to have been inside Smith's head, and there really isn't a lot of evidence to prove what Smith's personal beliefs were.

@All So apparently, when we say "Smith's theology", we are talking about Smith's publicly taught theology. Some editors, like Canadiandy, take the statement that Smith's theology changed over time to mean that we are also insinuating that it was inconsistent. While that may indeed be Foxe's intent (or at least, his belief), "changing theology" seems consistent with "continuing revelation". From an apologetic LDS view, I could argue that Smith's understanding of the nature of God did not change, but rather, that he was instructed by God to explain the doctrine little by little - gradually weaning members away from traditional Christian views (I'm not saying that we insert this in the article; I'm simply illustrating that an apologetic view doesn't necessarily have to reject the statement that Smith's (publicly taught) theology changed). One of Bushman's critiques of the article was that we neglected the "continuing revelation" angle; I'm sure we can get some RSes that say something to the effect of "Smith wasn't afraid to introduce new doctrines due to his claim to continuing revelation". Perhaps we should look into expounding on this idea in the theology section. ...comments? ~BFizz 14:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, BFizz. Very helpful input. I get that Wikipedia isn't the place for fact. All I am asking from JohnFoxe and COgden is that their theory isn't posed as fact.--Canadiandy talk 14:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

So long as the word "later" remains in the picture caption, I'm perfectly content to have the word interpreted any way the reader chooses. And I certainly have no problem introducing the notion of "continuing revelation" to the article.

But whether or not Joseph Smith changed his theology is not theory in the context of this article. For Wikipedia purposes, the fact that Smith's theology changed is an absolute, undeniable fact because that's what reliable sources say. Canadiandy's use of the phrase "commonly held theory" might imply that there are other possibilities, but in fact there are none—that is, none backed by reliable sources.--John Foxe (talk) 17:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is for reliable sources. I don't like smears and I don't like agenda-pushing, and so I've tangled with an editor or two over the years. But if there were reliable, bona fide, secondary sources that said JSJr loved smoking cigars and drinking beer at Moesser's Bar in Nauvoo, we'd be obligated to stick it in the article if relevant and part of a flowing narrative. Best, A Sniper (talk) 18:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Give me the beer and cigars, and I'll provide the relevance and flowing narrative.--John Foxe (talk) 20:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The sources that describe Smith's changing theology primarily rely on the changes as reflected in Mormon scripture and ultimately in the King Follett discourse. Nobody claims to be able to peek into Smith's mind, but at the same time, I don't know of anyone, apologist or not, that would seriously propose that Smith believed a theology different from the theology he actually taught and revealed as scripture. That would be a problem from an apologetic perspective, because it implies that Smith's early revelations were purposefully deceptive. COGDEN 04:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Is Bushman Reliable?

Since you are all so eager to quote Bushman, I found this one in an article reporting on how edit warring and sockpuppetry have factored in the development of this article. I'm sure John Foxe has already read it since he was interviewed for it.

http://www.mormontimes.com/article/19551/Wiki-Wars-In-battle-to-define-beliefs-Mormons-and-foes-wage-battle-on-Wikipedia

But the most eye-opening quote is by Bushman himself. He "... thinks the article is technically accurate in the sense that the facts are traced to documents from people in the 19th Century. "But we have to remember that Joseph Smith was even more controversial in the 19th Century than he is now," Bushman said. "What I think is the real failing of this piece is that it lacks scope. It just picks its way along from one little fact to another little fact, all of them ending up making Joseph Smith an ignoble character of some kind. And it never really assesses Joseph Smith's achievement. What was the significance of this person in history? After all, he was the founder of a church that is remarkable for continuing for a couple of centuries. Yet it doesn't give you any sense of how he did that. There's no explanation of how he acquired all these followers. … The article doesn't say anything about the impact of new revelation on followers or even make much of the fact that Joseph was continually receiving revelation. So it becomes a picky piece that isn't inaccurate, but it sort of lacks depth. It ends up being shallow, I think."

Hmm, "failing ... lacks scope ... making Joseph Smith an ignoble character ... never assesses [his] achievements ... picky ... inaccurate ... lacks depth ... shallow." So if Bushman is right when he finds fault with Joseph Smith, is he right when he finds fault with this article too? You'd have a hard time arguing with Bushman, he is after all a prominent, peer-reviewed, authority on Joseph Smith.--Canadiandy talk 08:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiandy1 (talk • contribs)

Bushman is fine scholar and a man of great personal charm, but he's also a Mormon believer. His attempts to maneuver between academic respectability and the General Authorities has been no easy task. In his short book, On the Road with Joseph Smith (2007), about his year of book tour after publication of RSR, Bushman recounts a note from a retired General Authority expressing "disappointment" that "opponents of the Restoration will find additional fuel and that newly converted or marginal Saints may be weakened." Bushman replies that his "only aim was to tell a truthful story based on all the sources. The problem with the fuel-for-enemies objection is that the fuel is already there. I don't provide it. We have to deal with it or it will be used against us."(100)

So, considering the fine line that Bushman has to walk to stay in good graces of the folks in the Church Administration Building, I was greatly encouraged when he described this encyclopedia article as "technically accurate" picking its "way along from one little fact to another little fact." That's what we do here at Wikipedia, believers and unbelievers: we strive for technical accuracy, picking our way along from one fact to another. Musings on larger philosophical or religious truths have to be saved for other venues. Our only job here is to tell "a truthful story" based on reliable, peer-reviewed secondary sources, and Bushman's biography is one our best sources in the effort to do just that.--John Foxe (talk) 11:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Please reread your opening line, "Bushman is [a] fine scholar and a man of great personal charm, but he's also a Mormon believer." Kind of like saying, "Einstein was a brilliant scientist, but he was also Jewish." I think this is the very problem you are having here, JohnFoxe, the position that any Mormon that agrees with you is an authority, while any Mormon who does not is obviously unreliable. Discrimination based on religion is what it looks like. I didn't want to single you out, but the article makes the clear point that you (possibly with the support of COgden) historically have been so aggressive in dismissing input from conservative Mormons that they are simply leaving the discussion. The point the article makes still holds (whether you like it or not) that the focus of this article's primary editors has been not to find common ground, but to make it both critical and negative in tone and then to build a moat around it and throw in some alligators to feed any conservative Mormons to. I don't know for an absolute fact that that is true, but it sure looks that way from where I stand.--Canadiandy talk 16:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Canadiandy, I take seriously Bushman's critique of the article, and don't doubt that if Bushman wrote it himself, it would certainly have more engaging prose. In fact, we pretty much know how Bushman would write this article because he wrote the entry for Encyclopedia Britannica. But we can't copy Bushman's encyclopedia article for copyright reasons, and even if we could, that article would not be follow WP:DUE--even though his larger biography probably (almost) would. There is a big difference between a large biography and an encyclopedia article. In the latter, you have very limited space, and you have to make decisions about what information to omit, and what information to retain. Though Bushman agrees with the factual details that most of what mainstream historians have written about Smith, when you have to put all those details through a strainer and omit most of them, he is going to make a different editorial choice than other authors like Brodie, Quinn, the two Hills, Compton, Hullinger, Brooke, Van Wagoner, Vogel, Abanes, the Ostlings, etc. Writing this Wikipedia article is harder than Bushman's work on Brittanica because he could make his own editorial choices based on what he thought was important. We, on the other hand, have to write a encyclopedia article that a committee of Bushman, Brodie, Quinn, Compton, Vogel, etc., would likely produce. I'm strongly in favor of adding more philosophical material about Smith's meaning and importance, and I have some ideas of how to do so. But this is not easy, given that all the authors have different ideas on the meaning of Smith, and if we include one such perspective, like Bushman's, we must give them all their {{WP:DUE|due]] space in the article. COGDEN 17:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Canadiandy, the real difficulty for conservative Mormons is that Wikipedia articles must be based on reliable sources, and Mormon writers of apologetic history rarely publish peer-reviewed books or scholarly articles in peer-reviewed journals. (Bushman's an exception, and so is Terryl Givens.) Wikipedia demands reliable sources, not some sort of "common ground" between reliable sources and apologetic ones.--John Foxe (talk) 17:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

If this article reflects the dignity afforded any researchers who are not cynically focused towards Joseph Smith, is it any wonder they don't publish? I'm surprised they can report that Joseph Smith was male without being accused of LDS-POV or Mormon bias.--Canadiandy talk 18:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiandy1 (talk • contribs)

Canadiandy, there are many Mormons writing in citable fora. The peer-reviewed Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Journal of Mormon History, and Signature Books are full of Mormon authors, for example. Quite often, Mormon writers like Bushman, Givens, Juanita Brooks, have also written in peer-reviewed university presses. Citable Mormon sources are easy to find, as long as you stay away from FARMS, Deseret Book, and Bookcraft. I think the number of Mormon authors who only publish to uncitable fringe publications is rather limited. First of all, the only people who can make a living publishing to such fora are BYU professors, and second, only a handful of BYU professors are willing to spend their entire careers publishing works that get no scholarly recognition outside of BYU. Which is why someone like Royal Skousen, who sometimes writes fringy articles for FARMS, is still able to publish a mainstream work on the Book of Mormon accepted for publication by Yale University Press. It's not really about the author, their qualifications, or religious background, that makes them citable or uncitable--it's about the forum in which they choose to (or are able to) publish. COGDEN 07:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

What you seem to be saying is that as long as the authority is not published anywhere conservative Mormon thought is respected it is reliable. And the label for conservative LDS research is 'fringe'. Sounds to me like the iron dice are loaded.--Canadiandy talk 13:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC))

Wikipedia demands reliable sources, and Mormon apologists rarely publish such peer-reviewed scholarship.--John Foxe (talk) 13:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

One of the things you have to get used to about Wikipedia is that the threshold for inclusion is not factuality, but verifiability. Treatment of Mormonism isn't different than that of other religions in this regard; for example, sources that operate under the assumption that Jehovah's Witnesses is the true Christian religion, or that Muhammed was a true prophet, are equally considered "fringe". ...comments? ~BFizz 14:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm neither a Mormon or an anti-Mormon - I'm a Wikipedia editor. I wouldn't want Bushman or any other single person to write the whole article. Flaws or not, the whole point is that we keep chipping away at it - refining, reforming. Sometimes we lose our tempers, sometimes we're mellow. We stick with it, to make it more accurate, but always trying to follow the rules. Best, A Sniper (talk) 14:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit requested

{{Edit protected}} Please sort Please replace [[Category:Joseph Smith, Jr.]] with [[Category:Joseph Smith, Jr.| ]] per WP:SORT. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. I didn't find the eponymous category actually on the page at all, so I added it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from JJADuP, 5 May 2011

I do not see any proof stating that Joseph Smith Jr. was a polygamist, yet in the first line of the article you say that he was one. Either take it away, or get your facts straight. JJADuP

JJADuP (talk) 07:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Uh, NO. Best, A Sniper (talk) 15:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The evidence is in footnote 242, which lists the estimates of reliable sources as to the number of wives Smith married: Compton (1997, p. 11) (counting at least 33 total wives); Smith (1994, p. 14) (counting 42 wives); Brodie (1971, pp. 334–36) (counting 49 wives); Bushman (2005, pp. 437, 644) (accepting Compton's count, excepting one wife); Quinn (1994, pp. 587–88) (counting 46 wives); Remini (2002, p. 153) (noting that the exact figure is still debated).--John Foxe (talk) 09:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

JohnFoxe. That seems like a nice touch, presenting the numbers in a progressively increasing way. Of course an unbiased presentation would present the numbers in a more random way, but I respect your right to be aggressive in your presentation of the facts. My interest is in the fact that they all have different numbers. So in essence, they are all wrong? But though they all disagree (no two came up with the same number), we will keep hearing the tidbit that they all agree that he had several wives. What's the old saying, if at first you don't succeed, manipulate your data.--Canadiandy (talk) 06:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey JJADuP. I too have a problem with the way Joseph Smith is so casually branded a "polygamist." I do not have a problem with the suggestion he may have been dynastically sealed (married) multiple times. But this would not be tantamount to a traditional definition of polygamy. My big problem is that that point is made far more prevalently than is the legacy he left as a devoted husband to Emma and a loving father to his children and those he and Emma adopted from other marriages. In fact, in spite of the fact that some "reliable" authorities claim he had over 30 wives, there has been absolutely no DNA evidence that he had even a single offspring except with Emma. That at least warrants, in my mind, a qualifier before a biased and simplistic labeling such as this. I couldn't imagine anyone having 30 wives in the 1840s and not having literally millions of descendants today (all which would have also traced their lineage back to Joseph). Then again, one big Wikiflaw is that even if it seems common sense and is logical, 100 year old hearsay from biased critic trumps plain logic here. But it would be really nice if you could stick around and add your input. Us few conservative Mormons are having a tough go of it here. And as has been evidenced in newspaper articles about this very article, it is quite controlled by the more cynical old guard (a self-professed anti-Mormon and COgden who identifies himself as a "Liberal Mormon"). Oh yeah, please refrain from using imperatives (telling people what to do). Better form is to ask or state your desire. It keeps the Mormon-bashing a little more civil.--Canadiandy (talk) 05:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

That Smith was a polygamist, and that his marriages were real marital unions involving sexual relations as the norm, is not a controversial point, especially among LDS scholars who are happy to see Smith as being just as much a polygamist, if not more so, than Brigham Young. The only faction that once doubted Smith was a polygamist was the RLDS Church (now the Community of Christ), but even they have come to terms with the fact that he had dozens of wives. The most conservative estimate, I believe, is 28, but that is at the far low end, and really, there is solid proof of at least 33. How many more than this 33 he actually had is unknown, and a bit speculative, because he didn't always keep records of his marriages, and they were all kept secret except among the participants and a few insiders. COGDEN 07:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Wow, if there ever was a fringe theory. So if his number of wives is 4 or 5 times those of Brigham Young, and Brigham Young has a progeny of literally millions of people, how do the authorities explain away not one single case of DNA evidence supporting this theory?--Canadiandy (talk) 14:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

As a great-grandson of a great-granddaughter of JSJr & Emma, I've come to grips with all of this, at least as a Wikipedia editor for years. I could push the agenda that I also indeed find it odd that not a single child has been proven from the alleged marriages (again: I use alleged not to wax agenda-like but because of the lack of consensus over whom & how many) but that the Brigham Young reunions now fill football stadiums. However, it always comes down to reliable, secondary sources for me. I'd love more folks from the RLDS/CoC tradition (Howard, Ham, Launius, etc.) to have written more scholarly, unbiased works on the subject (and someday will drag out some of the late 18th Century volumes I have in boxes). But what we have is what we have. We're either taking our Wikipedia editing seriously or we're agenda-pushing. I can go along with diminishing the tee hee tabloid factor, if for no other reason than it is far more speculative and shrouded in confusion and innuendo than anything written about Young's marriage habits. But I'm not willing to edit away all the Bushmans. I just plea to everyone that it is well-rounded and agenda-less... Best, A Sniper (talk) 15:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's that surprising that he didn't have any known children other than with Emma. Unlike with Brigham Young, Smith's polygamy was secret, and if any children were born to him other than from Emma, there would be political and possibly legal problems. COGDEN 19:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

In any case, there's no requirement that marriage results in offspring (or that offspring results in marriage, or that marriage is related to intercourse). Just because I haven't crashed a car doesn't prove I don't have a drivers license. tedder (talk) 19:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

My point is only that the lack of any DNA evidence calls into question either the theory or the authorities on the subject of Joseph Smith being a polygamist (I still don't deny his possibly being dynastically married to multiple women). The way I see it, either Joseph Smith was not a polygamist, or the researchers are incompetent. Of 30+ claimed wives not one left a memoir or journal entry or letter linking us to what would have to be millions of descendants? If you were to ask any authority on genealogy if this is possible they would laugh at you. So I am not arguing we deny the claim that Joseph Smith was or was not a polygamist, only that it be appropriately qualified based on what we all agree on, there is no DNA evidence anywhere proving any children to Joseph Smith except through Emma. 70.67.135.108 (talk) 15:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

The lack of DNA evidence makes no difference unless a reliable source says it does. And none do. All trustworthy sources agree that Smith was a polygamist. (Birth control techniques were known in the nineteenth century, and although crude by modern standards, they weren't completely useless, especially when practiced by those who had a lot to lose from discovery.)--John Foxe (talk) 17:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

 Not done: Request declined, due to lack of consensus at present. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

John Foxe. Is that how the authorities are explaining the lack of concrete evidence? As cynical a suggestion as it is, it's the only theory which actually might be possible. So maybe it should be in there. I won't stand in the way of your wanting to include that academic theory, especially as it seems the only plausible explanation. So if you are wanting to add something like,

"Authorities suggest Joseph Smith may have used birth control in every single one of these relationships which is the best theory to explain the strange reality that there has not been a single case in which DNA testing has reliably proven lineage to Joseph Smith through any wife except Emma."

Thanks for your input, John Foxe. --Canadiandy talk 03:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Personal opinions that you or I express on this talk page are just that, personal opinions. The article itself has to be based on reliable sources. (Here's another possibility: John C. Bennett is said to have promised women whom he seduced that he could perform any necessary abortions. It certainly wouldn't surprise me if he had also provided this service for an erstwhile friend. While women might have lined up to have claimed an alliance with the Prophet, none would have admitted to have had an abortion.)

Can both of you guys cease the tiddle taddle because it is all just a lot of hot air. If the reliable sources say JSJr had multiple wives, and reliable sources also state that there has yet to be a human being proved by DNA to be an illegitimate offspring of JSJr. (as the research in Utah concluded five years or so ago, covered in the press), we can allow readers to reach whatever conclusions they wish. Best, A Sniper (talk) 18:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I'm done.--John Foxe (talk) 19:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Not to flare up discussion again, but the question at hand is whether or not to state that JSJr was a "polygamist" in the lede, without further explanation until the article body. I'm OK with it there, and I even feel it important to mention it there (even if the marriages were only dynastic), although I'm not opposed to considering alternate ways of phrasing it. However, the alternatives I can think of (for example: "practitioner of plural marriage") seems either verbose or awkward. Joseph Smith did have multiple wives, and one way or the other, that is a rather important thing to make clear note of in the lede. ...comments? ~BFizz 01:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that anybody has ever published the theory that Smith's marriages were all merely "dynastic" in a reliable source. That theory has no constituency. Conservative apologists for the Community of Christ wouldn't write that because they claimed Smith never entered marriages other than to Emma. The LDS Church wouldn't claim that because they used to be proud of Smith's polygamy until the 20th century, and after the 20th century, they started claiming that the sole purpose of polygamy was to "raise a righteous posterity." So this is a fringe theory without a fringe. COGDEN 03:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

A Sniper. I totally agree with you that the reader should be free to reach whatever conclusion they will. But to reach that conclusion they should have all the relevant research. I just think the media research which recognizes there is no DNA evidence should be included so that the reader can make their decision. I'm not pushing POV, I'm pushing for inclusion and reference to what is reliably sourced, that there is not one single case of DNA evidence. I apologize if it is in the article and I am missing it. But, if not, seeing the iron wall some are willing to build up around this inconvenient point, I will surrender with reservation, registering my disagreement with the flippant dismissal of what is perhaps the most key question around the theories of Joseph Smith's so-called "Polygamy."--Canadiandy talk 04:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

This detail is indeed included in the article body; it is currently in the "Family and descendents" section: "DNA testing has provided no evidence that Smith fathered any children from women other than Emma." I could imagine including this in the lede as well, perhaps in the final paragraph or near there. Something to the effect of: "Though Smith secretly practiced polygamy, his only proven descendants are through his original wife Emma." I find it slightly strange that Emma isn't mentioned in the lede at all. I'd imagine his children, at least JS III, also merit a quick mention in the lede. ...comments? ~BFizz 05:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to adding a brief mention of his family, broadly defined. I think any mention of DNA testing is way too much detail for the lede, though. COGDEN 06:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

BFizz's proposal seems very fair. No mention of DNA to keep COgden happy, and the small qualifier the article needed to approach balance.--Canadiandy talk 07:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Instead of presenting it as a negatively and defensively, like "Smith didn't father Children except by Emma...", I'd present it positively, like "Smith was the father of X surviving children, all with his first wife Emma, and the husband of at least 27 other wives." COGDEN 01:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request: as of 2010

Please update {{as of|2010}} to be {{as of|2011}} in the last sentence of the first paragraph in the section "Family and Descendents". There are a couple other "as of" statements that could probably be updated as well. ...comments? ~BFizz 04:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Let me know about the others, or perhaps just wait a couple of days for the protection to expire. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Fanny Alger 2

When the block expires I'm committed to re-adding the material that describes Smith's relationship to Fanny Alger. Bushman gives the affair a subhead and four pages; no reliable source denies it. Sexual affairs of men who claimed to speak in the name of God have been treated frankly and at length at Wikipedia, as for instance Henry Ward Beecher, Billy James Hargis, and Jimmy Swaggart. Smith's affair with Alger is not gossip, and it's not WP:UNDUE because it's significant in the creation of Smith's doctrine of plural marriage. (There are accounts that Alger bore Smith's child; without additional proof these accounts are indeed gossip.)

While I'm personally disgusted that Smith seems to have taken advantage of a young girl who should have been under his protection and believe that the affair reflects negatively on Smith's character and reputation, my personal views should be completely discounted. Let's report the affair fully and let the reader decide for himself.--John Foxe (talk) 15:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Put your proposed text here so it can be wordsmithed/discussed while the article remains protected. alanyst 17:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Here's basically how the paragraph read before protection:

Smith had by some accounts been teaching a [[Mormonism and polygamy|polygamy doctrine]] as early as 1831,<ref>{{Harvtxt|Compton|1997|p=27}}; {{Harvtxt|Bushman|2005|p=326}}; {{Harvtxt|Hill|1977|p=340}}.</ref> and in 1833 he may have secretly engaged in a plural marriage with his adolescent household serving girl [[Fanny Alger]],<ref>{{Harvtxt|Bushman|2005|p=323}} (noting that Alger was fourteen in 1830 when she met Smith, and her involvement with Smith was between that date and 1836, and suggesting that the relationship began as early as 1831). {{Harvtxt|Compton|1997|p=26}}; {{Harvtxt|Bushman|2005|p=326}} (noting Compton's date and conclusion); ''but see'' {{Harvtxt|Smith|2008|pp=38–39 n.81}} (questioning whether Smith and Alger were actually married).</ref> a relationship Cowdery believed immoral.<ref>{{Harvtxt|Brodie|1971|pp=181–82}}; {{Harvtxt|Bushman|2005|pp=323–25}}.</ref> According to Bushman, Smith himself "never denied a relationship with Alger, but insisted it was not adulterous. He wanted it on record that he had never confessed to such a sin. Presumably, he felt innocent because he had married Alger."<ref>{{Harvtxt|Bushman|2005|p=325}}.</ref> --John Foxe (talk) 18:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

So the difference from the current text would be this:

and may have married secretly engaged in a plural marriage with his adolescent household serving girl Fanny Alger by 1833.

That, plus adding the "According to Bushman" at the end. Is that correct? I personally find it to be an unnecessary modification. I know Foxe is using a direct Bushman quote because he doesn't want to be accused of inserting this detail from his own POV. But it's rather awkward to quote him like this, imho. I'd be fine including the details that he "never denied a relationship with Alger, but insisted it was not adulterous", although in our own words. Perhaps something like this:

Cowdery accused Smith of inappropriate behavior with Alger; Smith insisted that his relationship with her was not adulterous.

...comments? ~BFizz 00:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

John Foxe. Isn't it your moral crusade that got the article blocked in the first place? Sadly, it looks like the John Foxe of old is back. I think you are capable of much better. Is your goal now simply to push and push and push until you get your way? I thought this was about consensus. And in my books, harassing your opponents until they quit isn't much in keeping with the Wikipedia ethic. I vote for a block on John Foxe. In fact, if an administrator wants to I would be willing to see "offsetting major penalties" (put us both in the box for a few months to even things up). Don't worry, the article won't change much with COgden protecting it until we're both out of the box.--Canadiandy talk 01:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the language above is bad, or the original language, but I'd favor a different approach. I think the Alger story, and the beginnings of polygamy, are significant plot points and they deserve more emphasis than they get. Right now, early polygamy is introduced as merely a factor that led to the Kirtland crisis of 1838 and Cowdery's defection. But I think we ought to devote a few sentences earlier in the section about early polygamy. This might include info like the following (I'm not saying all this should necessarily be included): Smith's suggestion that elders enter polygamous marriages with Native Americans to fulfill a Book of Mormon prophecy; Smith's performance of illegal monogamous marriages because he considered his right to marry by the priesthood to supersede government power to regulate marriage; while Smith considered (or came to consider) the relationship sealed by God, there are differing opinions on whether the relationship included an actual ceremony; Smith denied others the right to enter polygamy during this period; that Emma kicked Alger out of the house when she discovered the relationship, etc. COGDEN 03:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't favor that kind of detail in this article only because this is the upper level article and it is the kind of detail for the number of other articles that address polygamy in detail. Alger was not the reason for the development of Plural Marriage. The doctrine came first and then the practice of it. In this article the focus should be on the doctrine itself and the difficulties it caused Smith and his church. -^StormRider 06:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

COgden. Your wording about "plot points" reveals much. You seem to look at this article more like a story than a history. It seems that you, along with John Foxe are continuing along with the crusade of making the story juicy. I am a little saddened that you would take such a position and then fly the "Mormon" flag to justify it. I'm not sure what point you are trying to prove in your life but in years to come as you look back at your life I hope the highlight isn't the "wonderful" contributions you made at Wikipedia. You own the article for now, it's on your conscience. --Canadiandy talk 06:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

To return to the wording of the paragraph in question, what do you think of BFizz's compromise: the addition of "secretly engaged in a plural marriage" and "never denied a relationship with Alger but insisted it was not adulterous."--John Foxe (talk) 12:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

"Never denied a relationship with Alger?" Do you mean to say admitted to? Hmmm.--Canadiandy talk 05:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Here's what Bushman says: "Cowdery and Joseph aired their differences at a meeting in November 1837 where Joseph did not deny his relationship with Alger, but contended that he had never confessed to adultery. Cowdery apparently had said otherwise, but backed down at the November meeting. When the question was put to Cowdery 'if he [Joseph] had ever acknowledged to him that he was guilty of such a thing...he answered No.' That was all Joseph wanted: an admission that he had not termed the Alger affair adulterous." (324-25)--John Foxe (talk) 09:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

That is still presumptive. Not denying something is not the same as admitting it. Part of the fuzzy logic that has so confused this whole history I figure.--Canadiandy talk 15:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

It may be presumptive, but the person doing the presuming is a reliable source—which is what counts here at Wikipedia.--John Foxe (talk) 15:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes the person making a presumption may be a reliable source, but as I read it, an individual is reported by a third party not to have denied something, a researcher presumed something from this lack of denial and that empowers us to state it as fact? This may squeak through Wikipedia guidelines, but that doesn't mean it has consensus here. Am I the only one troubled by this?--Canadiandy talk 04:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Apparently you are. By Wikipedia guidelines a reliable source can make any presumption he'd like, and that presumption will always trump the logic and intuition of a WP editor. Of course, the presumption of such a reliable source might be rebutted by another reliable source. Seek and ye shall not find.--John Foxe (talk) 13:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

No disrespect, John Foxe. I don't think you get to speak for the community of contributors here. Knowing your POV and that you are the one pushing this issue, your position is a given. I'm also interested in what the others here think. Could the others please respond as to whether this is an issue that is key or helpful to the article and whether this is a road we need to take to improve the article? John says yes (correct me if I'm wrong John Foxe) and I say no. So right now there is no consensus. --Canadiandy talk 14:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

True, we lack consensus, and my "position is a given," but that makes no difference here because I have all the reliable sources on my side and you have none on yours.--John Foxe (talk) 16:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Consensus isn't important? Is that WP policy? I'd like to honor the input of the community here. That is why I will restate the question; do other contributors feel this is an issue that is key or helpful to the article and is this really a road we need to take to improve the article?--Canadiandy talk 19:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

If we sought a consensus here on whether or not Joseph Smith was a prophet sent from God, we could get one without difficulty. In the affirmative. But we couldn't introduce that consensus position to the article without citation to reliable sources. At Wikipedia, evidence from reliable sources trumps consensus just as it trumps logic, truth, and reason.--John Foxe (talk) 20:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Anyone else think this is key to the article's improvement?--Canadiandy talk 22:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I've made my opinion clear previously: I feel that additional information (from the reference point of the locked article) on Alger is unnecessary. However, I admit the possibility of including a small amount more, and I've outlined the amount I feel is still within limits of "due weight" policy. The choice rarely needs to be an include/exclude dichotomy. I feel that the current revision, with Bushman's presumption relegated to the footnote, is OK. I'm still a little unhappy with the "may have engaged" sentence; I don't recall if I noted before that it irritates my statistical sense of randomness (events in the future "may" or "may not" happen, they are uncertain. Events in the past "did" or "did not" happen, they are certain, though not always provable or knowable). Perhaps instead we could use "there is some evidence that..." or similar? ...comments? ~BFizz 00:49, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I rate this little escapade as the type of information that anti-Mormons love to talk about, but has no meaning. Cowdery, a trusted associate of Smith says something, but no one has proved what he knows and by what source. What we have is hearsay to implies a conclusion, but just hearsay. My personal feeling is that Smith was sealed to Alger. Did he have a conjugal relationship with her? It is possible, but I don't know. If he didn't I suspect that the did have a sexual relationship with at least one of his other wives, but there is no proof. Smith did say things as if he appreciated his wives, but in that statement it is only a inference.

As I stated above, I simply don't think this is valuable here. It is covered in a sub-article. What is important to know is that Smith supported plural marriage, he practiced it, but we do not know which of his wives were sealed only and which of his wives did he have a sexual relationship. Talking about Alger is titillating, but serves no purpose here.-^StormRider 06:15, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Every reliable source agrees that Smith engaged in a relationship with Fanny Alger, a teenager employed in his household. Neither he nor she denied it; neither apologized for it. Later all witnesses to the relationship agreed they were "married." Non-Mormons like me want to shout from the housetop, "The prophet was a lecher, his lack of moral character is clearly demonstrated in this instance." But that's no reason to exclude the information from the article, especially on grounds that it might be found somewhere else.

Mormons and non-Mormons agree in wanting to emphasize what's most important about Joseph Smith. But our notion of what's important differs.--John Foxe (talk) 11:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Alger is important for two reasons: (1) she was Smith's first polygamous wife, and (2) she was indirectly one reason for Cowdery's rift from Smith in 1837. Right now, we have an awkward way of introducing #1 as a side-note to #2. Actually, I think #1 is more important. Ultimately, I think there ought to be a little more about #1 and a little less about Alger's relation to #2, which was a pretty tenuous connection. The issue between Smith and Cowdery was deeper than just Alger. But info about Smith's earliest establishment of polygamy is very important in its own right. COGDEN 01:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

It is clear many (if not most) feel the focus on this issue is not necessary, or is too speculative (even if the speculations are made by "reliable" sources) to be featured as prominently as John Foxe and COgden would like. Seeing the community is clearly split on this issue, the question is whether John Foxe and COgden control the article or not. I will be interested to see what happens next.--Canadiandy talk 23:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Canadiandy, please take a look at WP:AGF. COGDEN 03:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

COgden, please take a look at WP:AOBF. I personally would love to see a return to balance in this article. I made no statements about bad faith, maybe about a concern over past practice. My comment is sincere that I am interested in what happens next. I did not express bad faith, merely the position that future actions will be what determines reality. I have an optimistic faith that John Foxe can return to a more balanced position as he has demonstrated in the past. As to what I might assume in your response here, COgden, I couldn’t begin to assume any faith, good or bad, because simply speaking your positions have been so confusing to me. The only common thread I have observed in the past is that you have ridden sidecar to almost everything John Foxe has done. And so I guess it follows that you, too, can also return to a balanced position as John Foxe does.--Canadiandy talk 04:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Allegations of ownership are not just throw-away allegations. If you think you have a real cause of action for ownership, you should gather your proof and go to dispute resolution. Otherwise, nobody listens to the editor who tries to shape articles through questioning editors' motives and religious devotion. COGDEN 21:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Clearly I touched a nerve I did not intend to. Your turn, but I am done with this one.--Canadiandy talk 02:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

COgden, what you propose is one alternative, the other of simply bringing it up, warning those involved is another. For you to assume that "nobody listens to the editor who tries to shape articles through questioning editors' motives and religious devotion" does speak to your assumptions of those who conflict with your edits and Foxe's. Further, both of you should reflect about the allegation of ownership. You both tend to focus on a single article and then control all edits; only those that meet your standards are acceptable and all others a rejected. If you both have not demonstrated ownership, you are both very, very close to it. Your assumption that it is only the religious devotion that prompts anyone to contradict your position is much worse than WP:OWN. I suppose that the exact same allegation could be assumed by Foxe and you. Foxe is an admitted anti-Mormon, is a professor in an Evangelical university, and is anything but neutral. You state your an active LDS committed to a "neutral" portrayal of historical fact. However, you write almost in lock-step with Foxe. This appears very much like a wolf in sheep's clothing and does tend to cause others to doubt your objectivity. Regardless, you and I both know that the article could contain a great deal of positive, referenced material on Joseph's life, his actions among the saints and his sacrifices on their behalf. The article is absent of any nobility of a young man that spent his life attempting to assist others in developing a much closer relationship to God and provide the hope of dwelling in his presence. It is an article that focuses only on the controversial points of his life; points that anti-Mormons spend their entire time disgorging in an unending wave of twisting and turning. Anti-Mormon "literature" should not be setting the agenda for this article, rather it should be a balanced approach to his life.

Joseph taught plural marriage; however, what is much more striking from a doctrinal standpoint is the his teaching on Sealings. His plural marriages/sealings were focused on eternity. Not a single historian attempts to portray each marriage as a sexual escapade because there is no evidence of any such life style. Who was the first plural wife, who was the 2nd, 3rd is meaningless. Is the 3rd more important than the next? Is the first more important than the last? The fact that he taught and married many women is what is important. Maybe giving a range of their ages, 14 to 58 years, is important for this article, but attempting to focus on individuals is best for other articles of which there are several. -^StormRider 06:38, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

First, I don't consider myself an "anti-Mormon." I've always gotten along well with Mormons in my personal life. Second, although I believe the Mormon religion false, that doesn't mean I can't edit this article any less objectively than a believing Mormon such as yourself. In fact, this article is as strong as it is because of the respectful give-and-take that we've evidenced here through many months.

I do view Joseph Smith's relationship with Fanny Alger as particularly significant. Smith had illicit contact with a teenager in his household who should have been under his protection; and that relationship, which both enraged and discouraged his wife Emma, speaks to both his character and his relationship to God. We wouldn't give a modern religious figure any slack about such a moral lapse, and there's no reason to try to protect Joseph Smith from the consequences of his wrongdoing either. What's most important about Joseph Smith is not his talk of visions and angels but the testimony of his life.--John Foxe (talk) 13:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

John Foxe; For most Mormons, the term 'anti-Mormon' usually does not imply people against Mormons but against Mormon doctrines. Now there are several 'anti-Mormon' (opposed to the doctrine)people who are also 'anti-Mormons' (opposed to the people) but I will assume in good faith you are not discourteous to the Mormons you know, as you claim. But (though I generally do not like labels) you do fit the description of one who is opposed to the doctrines of the Mormon people and so Stormrider is right in his expression. --Canadiandy talk 01:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I removed the sentence, "Smith never denied a relationship with Alger, but he insisted it was not adulterous." It is confusingly worded and just repeats the hypothesis that Alger was Smith's second wife. Plus, it's a stretch from the cited text. Let's just stick to the allegation: Alger is believed to have been Smith's first plural wife.

I've also added a tag until the source text can be inserted as a note for evaluation. Did Cowdery believe plural marriage or marriage to an adolescent or both "immoral"? Regards —Eustress ^talk 21:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

There's no evidence that Cowdery believed Alger to be Smith's first plural wife. Cowdery believed—and I believe—that Smith was simply committing adultery with a young servant who had the trust of his wife. (Are those sneer quotes around the word "immoral"?)--John Foxe (talk) 21:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

AGF, I was quoting the Wikipedia article. And your last edit was just disruptive. —Eustress ^talk 21:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

How was my edit disruptive?--John Foxe (talk) 22:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikilinking on the letter A

Why are we wikilinking to the article on the letter A in the following portion of this article?

"..failure to practice it would be to risk God's wrath.<ref>{{Harvtxt|Roberts|1909|pp=501, 507}} ("[[A]] those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same;..."

This makes no sense; is this a typo? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 16:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Good catch. Looks like a typo to me. ...comments? ~BFizz 16:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikiblame to the rescue; it was added here (looks like a typo by COGDEN?), the wikilink was fixed later. tedder (talk) 17:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's a typo. It should have read "[A]ll those who...." with single square brackets. (In the original, the 'A' is not capitalized. COGDEN 19:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Fanny Alger 3

Here's some fresh space to discuss the sentences about Fanny Alger. The article should make it clear that there's a disagreement among scholars about whether Joseph's association with Alger was a true plural marriage or simply adultery with a minor under his care.--John Foxe (talk) 17:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for stating your concern. I too want the issue to read more clearly. I've tried to reword the sentences to more accurately reflect the cited sources and to convey that there is some uncertainty among scholars regarding Smith and Alger's relationship. —Eustress ^talk 22:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Good. I've made a few tweaks, mostly to eliminate the direct mention of scholars (who are always behind what we write here) and to tighten the prose a bit. I do think the word "secret" is important.--John Foxe (talk) 01:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

...or whether there was no relationship at all. Foxe continues to imply that scholars think Smith had sex with Fanny Alger but Bushman, for one, only hints at the possibility. I oppose including Bushman's presumption in the article text, as I oppose other such speculative statements. Mentioning it in a footnote, where the quoted statement appears clearly beside the speculator's name, (I feel) is acceptable. ...comments? ~BFizz 04:27, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The sentence in the article says nothing about sex; it "only hints at the possibility."

The real importance of this incident is that it reflects negatively on Smith's probity, judgment, and character. Smith's immoral behavior (and I'm not ashamed to use the word "immoral") should not be disguised in the interest of religious sensibility.--John Foxe (talk) 23:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I think we're getting there. I added some critical context regarding Cowdery to the article. Bushman makes it clear that (1) Cowdery was the only person who ever made such a claim (in fact, David Patten said the rumors were untrue), (2) Cowdery was leaving the church at the time of his claim, and (3) Cowdery was charged with defamation subsequent to this claim in 1838.

John, can you provide the source text for the claim that the relationship was "secret"? —Eustress ^talk 14:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

In fact, Cowdery is our only contemporary source. All the testimony of the late nineteenth century, Mormon and anti-Mormon, is second-hand stuff that verges on gossip. (Can we compromise on just the two words "filthy affair"?)

Does the the source have to actually use the word "secret"? If Smith and Alger had a relationship and and no one knew about it, that's prima facie evidence that it was secret. Weddings usually call forth invitations and ceremonies. In this case, no one knew about it, neither party admitted to it, and there was no legal or even quasi-legal documentation. That's "secret" with a capital "S."--John Foxe (talk) 16:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with most of your tweaks. However, the word secret has a very specific meaning, and to use it here is OR, unless you can find direct support of its use. Additionally, you made changes that do not reflect the sources as cited; e.g., you changed "charged with slander regarding the matter in 1838" to "expelled from the church for slander"; and "leaving the church at the time of his claim" to "already estranged from Smith for other reasons" -- so I've modified the text to assuage these two concerns. —Eustress ^talk 20:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for giving me "filthy affair." That's a big step for me. I'm away from my books right now, but I'll try to find a quotation that properly expresses Smith's deceitfulness and bad faith. I can see your problem with "private." If I'm not mistaken, Cowdery was excommunicated from the church? Again, I'll check it out shortly.--John Foxe (talk) 21:22, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Bias in 'Ethics and Behavior'

Since I've now given up on the Alger trilogy, I have just finished reviewing the "Ethics and Behavior' section. In summary it is two paragraphs which point out;

Joseph Smith taught the Word of Wisdom but drank. Joseph Smith taught people to respect the law but 'broke' the law.

Seriously, has anyone read the section as it stands?

Can anyone explain how this is not simply a convenient and biased smear? No mention of his character in being the first to contribute upon learning of a family who lost their home. Or how he worked with (and not above) his followers. How about his faithfulness and loyalty to his brother, Hyrum? Or how about how the morning after being tarred and feathered he showed up to teach a sermon? So Bushman had nothing positive to say about Joseph Smith's character? The very title of the book "Rough Stone Rolling" seems to suggest Joseph Smith was a constantly improving individual despite adversity. No mention in his book of anything good in Joseph Smith's behavior or ethics? How is that conveniently missing?

I suggest removal of the section until it is balanced.

--Canadiandy talk 03:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the whole section needs to go. The only sentences that Canadiandy seems to find problematic are the concluding sentences of each of the two paragraphs.

Smith and other contemporary church leaders did not always follow this counsel.

This teaching perhaps explains why Smith felt justified in directing or permitting Mormon leaders to perform actions contrary to traditional ethical standards or in violation of criminal law.

The second is speculative and should be removed. The first feels like it's just an excuse to get Brodie's word about Smith drinking wine "with relish" into a footnote. The preceding sentences that explain that Smith presented the Word of Wisdom only as a guideline already imply that they did not strictly adhere to it at the time; so the first adds nothing to the prose.

A note to Canadiandy: the section is about the teachings of Joseph Smith, Jr regarding ethics and behavior, not necessarily about his own ethics and behavior. That said, "ethics and behavior" is a rather vague title and it seems odd that these two particular points were brought up in the section and nothing else. ...comments? ~BFizz 04:21, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Good point BFizz. Maybe the heading also needs to be reworded.--Canadiandy talk 06:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The second statement is analytical, not speculative. It is supported mainly by Quinn. It is a prominent historical interpretation, which I don't think should be deleted. One of Quinn's well-reviewed apologetic contributions is to put forward an ethical theory of Smith's behavior. In general, I think it's important to explain why Smith often felt unbound by normal legal and ethical principles, based on a higher theological justification. You could call this his "Celestial" law. It is one of Smith's common themes, upon which he spoke many times. Though clearly, the style and contents of this section can be improved. Maybe the heading could be something like "Ethical and behavioral teachings". COGDEN 06:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

COgden. Did you even read my initial statement? I am not questioning whether it is supported. I am not even asking for any of the items to be deleted permanently. I am asking only for a little balance. Have you found nothing in your all your studies that might suggest Joseph Smith was (or taught by example or principle) even fleetingly ethical or behaved ? If so why are you not contributing in a positive way? In my many months here I don't remember you contributing anything which dignifies Joseph Smith except as a compromise. A little help here would be appreciated.--Canadiandy talk 01:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that you're asking COgden to do your work. If you want to demonstrate that Joseph Smith was really a nice ethical fellow, why don't you find appropriate references in reliable sources such as Bushman, Brodie, Quinn, etc.? Then we can discuss where that information might fit in the article.--John Foxe (talk) 13:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

If COgden is a Mormon (though his contributions do not seem to me to follow that premise I will assume good faith) then the opportunity of honoring our first prophet is not 'my' work, rather it is 'our' work. My deferral in asking for his support is in essence a nod to his deep understanding of the research. It actually looks like you are the one showing disregard to COgden here. My communication was with him, and I trust he is intellectually capable of answering my questions all by himself. --Canadiandy talk 17:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

COgden's perfectly capable of answering for himself, and I deeply respect his knowledge of early Mormonism. But this article's about Joseph Smith, not COgden. You say a section of this article is a "biased smear" against Joseph Smith. Then do your own research in reliable sources to refute the "smear." Bring your findings here, and the whole community can discuss it together, Mormon and non-Mormon.--John Foxe (talk) 19:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

John Foxe. I agree this article is about Joseph Smith. I expressed concern its treatment is myopic and requested support from COgden. You are the one making an issue out of it. And again, imperatives are poor form. I won't be bullied out of the discussion. It does not belong to you.--Canadiandy talk 19:34, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

You believe COgden's treatment of Smith is myopic, and so, instead of doing your own research, your solution is to go to COgden for assistance because of his "deep understanding"?--John Foxe (talk) 19:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I mistyped. I meant to type that the article's treatment is myopic. I never meant to attribute the section to COgden. If not for your cynicism I would never have caught it. Thanks.--Canadiandy talk 22:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to dignify attacks on my faith, Canadiandy, but suffice it to say that you profoundly misunderstand me if you think I believe Smith was unethical. Quite the opposite: I think that contrary to the uninformed popular view, Smith was deeply ethical, but his ethics were not the same ethics as yours and mine, or most other people who lived after the turn of the 20th century. Many people who do not understand someone's ethics presume that they have no ethics, which is why 19th century Americans incorrectly and ethnocentrically believed that polygamous Mormon men were simply lechers or predators, and many older writers assumed Smith was a sociopath, and some still do. But enough about my views. I hope you will spend less time questioning the motives of editors, and more time working to improve the article in accordance with Wikipedia policy. COGDEN 00:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if this will make you smile or cry, but on a lighter note I thought I'd include it.

Using Wikipedia to Push your Agenda (for Dummies)

Step 1. Find a subject you disagree with and spend years researching anything that is critical of your subject.

Step 2. Identify yourself as neutral and an expert on the subject based on the fact you are not sympathetic with it.

Step 3. Forge all of the critical literature you have read into organized paragraphs.

Step 4. Accuse anyone who opposes your position of having a point of view. This works especially well if you use the TLA (three letter acronym) ‘POV’ over and over.

Step 5. Every now and then make a minor compromise but then follow it up a couple days later with an even more negative attack on your subject.

Step 6. When anyone questions your article defend it by attributing what you wrote to the “experts” you have referenced. Identify them as prominent and peer-reviewed (code words for odd academics who write fan mail to each other).

Step 7. If anyone persists in questioning the balance of your article, throw up a smokescreen by accusing them as having a ‘fringe’ position, or better yet try and throw them off their message by accusing them of not having contributed enough peer-reviewed research. Remember, it doesn’t count as peer-reviewed if the peers are from a sympathetic University or group. That would be a POV problem.

Step 8. If anyone questions fellow cynical contributors, rather than addressing the concern, come to their defense by accusing that questioner of bias.

Step 9. If anyone uses logic that opposes your position, accuse them of breaking Wiki-etiquette somewhere (even if so doing is itself breaking wiki-etiquette). Anything underlined in blue is especially useful because it gives you both the appearance of being courteous (you are just trying to help). And obviously if the link is a Wiki rule you must be in the right because Wikipedia reigns supreme.

Step 10. Filibuster, filibuster, filibuster. Eventually your opponents will tire of this and leave in frustration giving you both the upper hand in the article and the appearance of a senior or controlling editor.

Hope it never happens here.--Canadiandy talk 07:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Done away with horrendous bias in the lead paragraph

I have removed portions of the lead paragraph included only to push a certain Anti-Mormon agenda, I would be thankful if that were not reverted. It seems this article only actually presents, mentions and even gives relevance to information which is critical of Joseph Smith. Having left this page alone for months, I return to find that it has even bigger Anti-LDS tone and bias to it than ever! It is seriously out of order that this should be allowed to happen and I will not stand for it anylonger. Routerone (talk) 14:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any problems with how it reads now. How did I miss the changes? It looks like a lot of cynics are editing without discussion here first. Glad to see you are doing it the right way, Routerone.It may turn back into an edit war and blocking but at least you are playing by the rules even if others aren't. --Canadiandy talk 17:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

It was undue negative weight in detail and thus it was written almost from an entirely critical point of view mentioning nothing about his prophethood or positive achievements. It instead accused him of being a "theocrat" and gave heavy weight to "folk magic" and stuff. I am playing by the rules, WP:BOLD I have a right to change the page and improve it. It is them who are reverting without rationale and trying to control the page. I will stand up to this as much as I possibly can! Routerone (talk) 17:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I reverted. I don't see how "He was also a theocrat, politician, city planner, military leader, and polygamist" is biased or anti-Mormon, and the article text (not to mention the sources) supports these labels. Having it in the lede helps the reader understand the various facets of the man beyond simply founding a religion.

Routerone's addition of how adherents view him is reasonable, but redundant since that's already mentioned in the last paragraph of the lede. (Also, the possessive pronoun is "whose", not "who's", which is a contraction of "who is" or "who has".)

The treasure-seeking bit is perhaps the most justifiably omitted from the lede on the basis of undue weight (compared to how much text is devoted to the translation of the Book of Mormon, or the founding of the church), and its implication-by-juxtaposition that the golden plates were just another episode of treasure-seeking. But the mention of the folk religion background in Smith's early years is helpful and doesn't seem to lead the reader to any particular conclusion.

I've been critical of John Foxe's article ownership and efforts to promote his personal views, but I don't like the passive-aggressive behavior coming from Canadiandy and Routerone either. Slow down, talk things over, don't get heated, and see if there's some common ground. alanyst 18:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that the aggressive efforts of John Foxe can only be balanced if we take them head on. I would like to sit back but whenever I do something else is sneaked through and we end up taking on an ongoing filibuster for control. I propose we revert back to Routerone's edit (which is just an earlier state). Does anyone have any neutrality issues with the way the Routerone revert read? I propose we act boldly, leave the revert, and then discuss the revert here if there are any problems with bias. --Canadiandy talk 18:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Analyst, I have given some thought to your not seeing how "He was also a theocrat, politician, city planner, military leader, and polygamist" is biased. I completely agree that at first blush the sentence appears unbiased. But much of the problem at the article is not the facts, but how they are organized and manipulated to create a cynical tone. It is not what is said, but what is missing that is the huge problem. Instead of identifying Joseph Smith as a leader loved by his fellow church members, or as a dedicated father, or a religious leader who recorded numerous complex and progressive doctrines, he is excused away as merely some kind of eclectic politician (and don't forget another opportunity to wave the polygamy flag). The deeper I look into this the more apparent it is that there is a great deal of spin and message management going on. All we are asking for is that, as an individual of religious importance to millions of LDS people, the subject of Joseph Smith be afforded a little dignity. I doubt Luther, Moses, or Martin Luther King would be so maligned. And if they are, I would speak out against that too. --Canadiandy talk 23:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Concerns with an editor's behavior should be brought up with that editor on their talk page, or presented with evidence in a user conduct Request for Comment for community input. Tit-for-tat editing or retaliation for perceived infractions is simply battleground behavior, and reflects more poorly on the editor who engages in it than those they are trying to thwart.

The correct type of dignity to afford the subject of Joseph Smith is an honest effort to dispassionately summarize the reliable scholarship and the notable points of view regarding that subject. Efforts to expose the perfidy, or to glorify the memory, or to highlight the hypocrisy, or to praise the character, of the man—these are not honest efforts to make the article encyclopedic, but are improper POV pushing and whether pro or con, they insult the subject and/or reader of the article.

The difficult fact to accept is that the article has to be based largely on academic scholarship, regardless of whether that scholarship as a whole has a skeptical or critical bias. This is hard to swallow for people who expect to see their personal views given more airtime, so to speak, but it's the only realistic way to write an open encyclopedia. A while back I started (and, alas, did little more than start) an essay about different forms of article bias. The main idea was to identify those biases that could (should) be controlled by Wikipedia policy, and those that cannot. Much of what Routerone and Canadiandy have complained about seems to be based on "the POV inherent in the sources used in the article", to quote my nascent essay. To a large degree, if one is unhappy with the general tone or conclusions of scholarship on a particular subject, one is likely to be unhappy with a well-written Wikipedia article on that subject.

Of course, sources can be cherry-picked and carefully manipulated to lead the reader to certain conclusions, and this is a bias that can (should) be countered. It's tough, though, because to do so one must show that the sources are being misrepresented, and this means that one has to argue from the sources. Without it, it comes across as merely complaining that the scholarship doesn't align with your personal point of view. Part of the reason that COgden and John Foxe are such dominant voices here is that they both argue from the sources, which carries a lot of weight (as indeed it should). They may or may not be putting their own interpretation on the sources, but the only way to tell is to check the sources oneself and show how they are being (mis)represented.

To the extent that John Foxe, COgden, B Fizz, Canadiandy, Storm Rider, Routerone, or any other regular here is making an honest effort to reflect the balance of the reliable sources and notable points of view, I support them. To the extent they regard their own personal view of Joseph Smith as the only legitimate or supportable one, and obstruct efforts to include differing points of view or scholarly conclusions, I object to their involvement in the article.

Sorry to expound at length, but I see the mistrust and anger growing and this will become an arbitration-level conflict if editors all around don't start treating each other as colleagues rather than adversaries. I tried to get a high-level discussion going of a vision for this article to help guide discussions and provide a foundation of mutual trust, but only a few regulars participated and that conversation died out. I hope it's not too late, though, for some reconciliation to be made and a working relationship to be re-established, where we acknowledge our differences and continue to debate and discuss but there's an undercurrent of mutual trust that nobody is trying to make the article tell just their side of the story. alanyst 02:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes and no. The issue here is that references are cherry-picked for a negative slant. Then there is the occaision error in a disalignment between reference and article statement. The only way these efforts are to be countered is for concerned editors to put forth the effort to glean other references that broaden, expand the controversial nature of the article. Unless one is willing to put forth the effort there is not a lot of room to complain. When references are found and inserted into the article that is where the contention may develop and that is where ownership may raise its head. At that point things get a little more interesting and there is not a clear path. It becomes solely an event of "consensus" sometimes it looks like majority rule and other times it just looks like who can hang on the longest and overwhelm all opposing views. -^StormRider 06:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

You're pretty much right, analyst. Thanks for taking the time. The reality is that John Foxe and COgden are far more versed in the cynical research and so it puts us at a disadvantage in any attempts to balance things out. And yes, we get pretty grumpy and mean-spirited over it. I think things recently got ramped up a bit after I made an appeal to COgden for support in presenting some of the positive elements of Joseph Smith's context. Not sure why that caused such a problem. I applaud your efforts to seek arbitration or a block on the article. As bad as it is, it seems to be only getting worse because we can't keep up to the sheer volume of edits. I'm sorry if I am too involved here, but every time I present an improvement it opens the floodgates of attack from the anti-Mormon contributors, and I refuse to be bullied out of here. Please notice that the last time we had a block, the second it was lifted John Foxe came storming out of the gates with his Fanny Alger issue. Kind of makes reconciliation hard. I'm all for a permanent ban on this article for Myself, Stormrider, Routerone, John Foxe and COgden (and please keep an eye out for sockpuppets should that happen). I think a new crew would bring a much more respectful tone to this article, because I don't think it could get much worse. If that should happen, would you please keep an eye on it. You seem to be the only neutral voice here. --Canadiandy talk 16:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Live Light edits

Really? I added something that I felt was constructive to the article, and you reverted it because it is "a waste of words." Please, you do NOT own the Joseph Smith, Jr. article. Nobody owns anything on Wikipedia, and your ownership issues are, I feel, getting a little frustrating. You do not seem to allow anyone to write anything that may put Joseph Smith in a positive light, such as his opposition to animal cruelty, which I feel would be a very good thing to add to the "Ethics and behavior" section of his article. Please consider lightening up and allowing others to give their feedback every once in awhile. Thank you. Live Light (talk) 14:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The Joseph Smith article is (by Wikipedia standards) overly long. We need to shorten it where possible, one of my goals here. That Smith chose Rigdon as his running mate for his presidential campaign is tangential at best.

There's nothing wrong with the animal cruelty material per se; it just needs to be cited to a reliable source, not an LDS Church publication.--John Foxe (talk) 14:44, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for clearing that up. I will try to find a reliable source. I apologize. Although I do feel that adding the information about Sidney Rigdon as Smith's running mate needs to be there, no matter what. That is very useful information. Anyone doing research on Joseph Smith's political endeavors will want to know that. (For example, I am writing a paper on Smith's presidential campaign and political ideas. If I did not know who he chose as his running mate, Wikipedia would probably be the first place I would check, prior to other confirming sources. But I would be confused if it was not there.) Live Light (talk) 15:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)\

Adding Rigdon to a footnote would be fine. But if you're writing a paper on Smith's presidential campaign and political ideas, you should start with Bushman and work from his references. Wikipedia should just be the place to find out about major sources like Bushman, Brodie, etc. We old guys are always going to prefer authoritative printed sources to on-line encyclopedias.--John Foxe (talk) 16:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The article does not reflect true fact, instead it reflects the Historical interpretation, spin, presentation and opinion of John Foxe. It's so deceptive and ill wrote it is indeed hideous. It's just one big attack on Joseph Smith rather than a meaningful presentation on who he was and what he achieved. Routerone (talk) 18:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Joseph Smith is most known for being a "Prophet!"

It's almost like it's not allowed for the word "Prophet" to be attached to this article in the lead paragraph. It's as if his claim of being a prophet must be censored and denied as much as possible!

Joseph Smith is remembered by all his followers around the world and even those who do not believe for his claim to be a Prophet. This is what makes him the most notable, not POV motivated rubbish like "Theocrat", etc. I think its important this is kept and not "spun" and denied to represent something different. He is known the very most out of all things for being a claimed prophet and if it were not for that nothing else in his life would be even distinctly relevant, his entire legacy and History is built upon that very claim. If you remove that then really his whole life wouldn't matter, because everything he did was based upon his prophethood claims! so how can you possibly deny or remove that from the lead paragraph? It's simply not fair or neutral or even representative if that is not given a distinct mention!

Moreover, articles on individuals such as Muhammed, Isaiah, etc, mention them in the lead paragraph as what their legacy is most remembered for, claims of being prophets. Joseph Smith is no different, stop writing this article to represent him as something he is not and stop trying to re-write History! Routerone (talk) 18:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you will find he is most remembered as a polygamist.--Charles (talk) 20:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

He was most remembered for being a prophet. His polygamy stemmed from his very legacy and authority of claiming to be a prophet. As does everything else. Him claiming to be a prophet is the keystone factor of his life. Routerone (talk) 21:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Prophet in the lede

Routerone has made changes that remove the other definitions of Smith, replacing it with "Who's[sic] adherents regard him as a Prophet." I modified the lede to include mention of 'prophet' but to include the other "hats" that Smith wore. Please comment on the versions ("original", "routerone", "tedder") here rather than continuing to revert. I have no preferred version; my version is intended as a compromise to encourage discussion and discourage editwarring. tedder (talk) 18:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Read post above please I mentioned it there Routerone (talk) 19:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I support Tedder's version. It's appropriate to mention that in the first paragraph of the lede since it's the defining claim of Smith's life and the basis for his following. alanyst 19:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Tedder's version is fine, but I think the original is better. (No one's mentioned Routerone's stealth attempt to remove the sentence about Joseph Smith's practice of folk religion, which is a more significant deletion.)--John Foxe (talk) 19:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I was trying to get the ball rolling rather than endorse a specific version. There are objections on both sides, but you are both (Routerone, Foxe) at or past the line of edit warring. Let the "wrong" version stand, discuss it here, don't make personal attacks. tedder (talk) 19:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Theocrat= POV

Claims of Joseph Smith being a Theocrat is an extreme POV statement to have made and a largely unfounded one made on false premises, often requiring a selective and ghastly spin of information for one to reach such a conclusion.

If I am not mistaken, Joseph Smith was very fond of Democracy and the U.S Constitution and if you argue he is a fraud then the pro-Democratic teachings within the Book of Mormon would be his if it were "false" of course. Labelling him a "Theocrat" is dishonest. I won't allow it to stay in the article. Routerone (talk) 19:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)