Talk:Joseph Smith

Revelation

I propose a new section specifically on Smith's revelations. It's length would probably be somewhere between the length of "Early years" and "Founding a church." I justify the addition of this section based on several quotes from Bushman, including, "The signal feature of his life was his sense of being guided by revelation" (preface). I know the article is already a little heavy on Views and Teachings, and this new section could probably replace some of the material there (such as the first paragraph of "History and eschatology", which I think is a weird section anyway.) Bushman has also been quoted as saying of this article, "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." With the new section, I intend to correct this problem.

A rough outline of how this section might look might be as follows:

• Short introductory Paragraph on Smith's revelations in general. How did they guide his life? Use material from Bushman preface. "He did not defend his revelations or give reasons for belief. He dictated words and let people decide. Everything he taught and most of what he did originated in these revelations." (Bushman preface) "Epigrammatic and oracular." Differentiated between opinions, teachings, and revelations.
• Very short Paragraph on first recorded revelation (Bushman 68-69) received during the translation of the Book of Mormon. Style of subsequent revelations ("Thus saith the Lord") (Bushman pages 129-130) (Brodie pp 55-57)
• Paragraph on the Book of Mormon, including a brief synopsis. (Bushman page 85) (longest and most complex of Joseph's revelations (Bushman 105)) (I think Vogel's book alone justifies this, since over 2/3 of his 560 page book is dedicated to a synopsis of the Book of Mormon)
• Perhaps a paragraph on Translation? (possibly move 2nd paragraph from "Founding.")
• Paragraph analyzing Book of Mormon. (Bushman chapter 4). Early Mormons called it a History of the Indians. Some call it an Extension of the Bible (mammoth apocryphal work). Some call it a response to the pressing issues of Joseph's times (Brodie 57-73). Some call it autobiographical (Bushman 106). Or drawing from other works (Brodie 72-73). Christian themes can't be ignored (Bushman 108). A sentence like this might lead into the next paragraph: "The Book of Mormon was the catapult that flung Joseph Smith to a place in the sun. But it could not be responsible for his survival there. The book lives today because of the prophet, not he because of the book." (Brodie 83).
• Short Paragraph on how Smith produced revelations. Spoke slowly and deliberately so the words could be written down. Revelations were immediately copied, recopied, and circulated. Often came in response to questions. "In later years Joseph described the spirit of revelation as 'pure intelligence' flowing into him. 'It may give you sudden strokes of ideas,' he said 'so that by noticing it, you may find it fulfilled the same day or soon; (i.e.) those things that were presented unto your minds by the Spirit of God, will come to pass.'" (Brodie page 57, arguing that what he was describing was his own alert, intuitive understanding and creative spirit) Given with confidence of Old Testament prophet (Brodie 57)
• Paragraph with overview of the revelations. What came when? Highlight major ones. Give timeline. (For example, the revelations slowed down considerably after Kirtland and then sped up again in Nauvoo.) How did they change over time? (For example: gradually moved away from the "Thus saith the Lord" approach and moved towards giving sermons; became more polished) Polygamy revelation was the last and "most epoch making"(Brodie 340).

In terms of the spreadsheet analysis I did earlier, this new section would solve some problems, but potentially make one worse. Two specific categories it would bring into closer alignment are: Book of Mormon (which currently has 0.39% weight but needs around 3.82%. This refers to the book itself, not translation or publication); and Doctrine (We should cut the views and teachings section back a little as material is covered in the new section. We currently have 10%; we need 2.7%) The specific category it would worsen would be "Revelation" itself. On the spreadsheet, the emphasis on Revelation is between that of Bushman and Brodie (with Bushman on the high side, Brodie on the low.) Most of WP's emphasis on revelation comes from the Views and Teachings section (a lot from ethics and behavior I think) and a little comes from the Ohio section, not sure where. This material could certainly be moved into the new Revelation section, but the end result would still likely be a move away from Brodie and towards Bushman in the Revelation category. I think such a move is justified, though, since one criticism of Brodie's book is that she doesn't explore Smith's religious side (Vogel viii). -- Adjwilley (talk) 00:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

What would be eliminated if you added a new section?--John Foxe (talk) 11:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Good question. Technically nothing would have to be eliminated at all, though I was planning to remove redundancies if they occurred. For example, the sentences in the fourth Ohio paragraph that reads, "He also produced fewer revelations, relying more heavily on the authority of his own teaching,[130] and he altered and expanded many of the previous revelations to reflect recent changes in theology and practice, publishing them as the Doctrine and Covenants.[131]" would be moved down, and parts of the first paragraph in History &E would be substantially duplicated in the Book of Mormon paragraphs. I do think that parts of the "Distinctive views and teachings" section should be trimmed, but that's a separate issue than what I'm proposing here. If I decide that cuts need to take place, I will propose them here on the talk page first. -- Adjwilley (talk) 17:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I have written a draft of the proposed section here. I have tried to remain faithful to the sources, but would appreciate comments, insights, or opinions from other editors before I try to integrate it into the article. The section ended up being a little longer than I anticipated, and is more heavily sourced to Bushman than to Brodie and Vogel. (This is for various reasons, including the fact that Bushman's book is divided into nice sections that make referencing easy, while Vogel's book seems a bit scattered, to me, and only covers Smith's life until around 1831. Also, as I mentioned above, Brodie doesn't have very much detail on Smith's revelations or religious thought.)

A paragraph near the end contains a brief summery of some of Smith's more "notable revelations." I determined the notability primarily by the weight they were given in Bushman's book, and the fact that they were all important enough to have names. All the revelations I listed (with the exception of the Word of Wisdom) received at least two pages of treatment. Also, I copied a paragraph on translation from the History section, and have taken the liberty of adding a couple of sentences and correcting one or two errors (i.e. Smith didn't say he saw the words, that was Joseph Knight).

Anyway, please let me know your thoughts on this new section.

– Adjwilley (talk) 00:40, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Why does it have to be so long? A section 1/4 that size would do fine and without repeating information given elsewhere in this article and in others (for instance, Book of Mormon).--John Foxe (talk) 23:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

That's a good point. The section is longer than I would like it, but I haven't been able to decide which part to cut. I think a brief synopsis of the Book of Mormon is appropriate, even though there's an article elsewhere on the subject. The reason for this is that the biographers I've read do this as well, and some of them spend a good deal of time analyzing the book.

As for information that is duplicated in the Revelations section that is already elsewhere in the article: I think a lot of that fits better under Revelations than elsewhere. The Word of Wisdom, for instance, currently has a paragraph in the Ethics section, which seems out of place. I think it should be deleted from there, and should live in the Revelations section. – Adjwilley (talk) 00:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not ideas that need to be cut but the wordiness of the exposition. One of the banes of Wikipedia is the belief that more is better.--John Foxe (talk) 14:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I’ve been thinking about the section length. I am all for eliminating fluff, as long as it can be done without removing the substance. I know I have a tendency for wordiness. Either way, the new section is quite long for having no breaks. In the short term, I think I can solve the problem by breaking it up into subsections on the BoM and Other revelations. Long-term, I'd actually like to see the section get longer, while the article stays about the same length. I think many of the ideas in the "Distinctive views and teachings" section are better introduced in the context of Revelation. That's how Bushman does it. He seems to follow a pattern of introducing the revelation first with some historical background, and then discussing the particular doctrines and implications. Adding a subsection on Abraham and Moses could swallow up most of our "Cosmology" section, and some of the material from "Religious authority and ritual", "Theology of family", "History and E*" could be moved up as well. Of course, these are ideas that I came up with today, and I don't have specifics, but I'll think about it. – Adjwilley (talk) 01:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I've performed a cut, just to provide an example of how I'd like to reduce the wordiness. But I also think the section should quote Brodie and Vogel on Smith's relationship to revelation because they obviously have a darker view of the process than does Bushman.--John Foxe (talk) 15:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

If I understand your cuts, you have reduced

"Perhaps the most notable aspect of Smith's life was his sense of being guided by revelation. Smith never presented his ideas in a clear, logical order or engaged in formal debate. Instead, he dictated authoritative revelations and let people decide whether to believe or not."

to

"Smith believed he was guided by revelation and never presented his ideas in any clear, logical order."

The first problem is that you've cut out more than just fluff. What I call "perhaps the most notable aspect", Bushman calls "the signal feature of his life" and that's been cut. Also, the fact that he never attempted to defend his revelations logically is an interesting and enigmatic point that Bushman hammers. Brodie and Vogel both assert that Smith was very intelligent. So why wouldn't he defend his revelations by appealing to logic or scripture? The initial version offered a glimpse into the complexity of the man, but the cut version sort of makes him out as a deluded bumbler who had trouble enunciating. I wrote the paragraph with Bushman's criticism of the article being "shallow" in mind, and the cut you are proposing seems to be a step in the direction of continuing that tradition. I welcome edits that cut out fluff, but let's not cut the heart out.

I'd certainly be open to adding material from Brodie and Vogel, though Brodie doesn't explore Smith's religious thought nearly as well as Bushman does. – Adjwilley (talk) 19:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll try again when I have opportunity. I think you should start the paragraph with a direct attribution to Bushman because the paragraph is obviously an opinion that would be difficult, if not impossible, to prove and one not held by Brodie or Vogel. Another book that's helpful on Smith's revelations is Kurt Widmer, Mormonism and the Nature of God (2000).--John Foxe (talk) 00:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

So you're saying to maybe start off the paragraph with something like "Historian Richard Bushman stated that Smith's sense of being led by revelation was the defining characteristic of his life" or "According to Richard Bushman, Smith's sense of being guided..." I'll check Brodie and Vogel again for their views on Revelations when I get a chance. I had watered down Bushman's statement to "Perhaps the most notable aspect of Smith's life was his sense" but your concern makes sense. – Adjwilley (talk) 18:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Pictures

I've been doing some thinking about pictures for the new section. The closest picture we have to Smith actually giving a revelation is the seer-stone-in-hat picture commissioned by John Foxe. My idea is to move that one down to the revelations section, along with the artistic representation of the Plates and U&T that recently replaced the B&W print of the Angel Moroni. I found an old painting with Smith and Moroni that can fill that spot.

Advantages to this move would be that it would free up space in the "Founding a Church" section (which is currently a little crowded with pictures) and would add relevant pictures to the "Revelations" section (which doesn't have any yet). We can keep the Seer stone and golden plates pictures next to each other (I feel they are related) and we get another picture of Moroni. The "Founding" section will focus on the important fact that Smith published a book, and any speculation on how he did it will be lower down in the article. (I see both pictures as speculative: one because it shows the plates, the other, because it doesn't.)

Disadvantages could be that the picture of Moroni is also speculative, and noticeably so, because now he's actually shiny like an angel, unlike the dude in the horrible old glasses print.

Here is an example of what the article might look like with the pictures moved. – Adjwilley (talk) 23:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Problems

I've found various problems in the "Distinctive views and teachings" section. Over the next few days (or weeks) I'd like to point out some of the problems, section by section, and then fix them. I will try to follow a pattern of stating the sentence or phrase with the problem, with its citation, stating what the problem is, and then making a recommendation to remedy the problem. Many of the solutions involve shortening or deleting: something I'm still getting used to :-) I'll begin with the two sections on Cosmology and Ethics. Feel free to comment if you feel so inclined. – Adjwilley (talk) 04:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Cosmology

Statement in Article	Citation	Problem	Recommendation
Embodiment, therefore, was the purpose of earth life.	Bushman 421 "From Joseph's perspective, the melding of matter and spirit at birth was a major purpose for coming to earth. In a sense, embodiment was the the very purpose of earth life.	Overstatement; drawing a conclusion beyond what the source says.	Delete the sentence. The previous sentence "Nevertheless, spirits were incapable of experiencing a "fulness of joy" unless joined with corporeal bodies" is sufficient.
The work and glory of God, the supreme intelligence was to create worlds across the cosmos where inferior intelligences could be embodied.	Bushman 455-56	Understatement. The passage in Bushman makes it clear that Smith's god was more than just a supreme intelligence.	Delete "the supreme intelligence." It's an odd amount of detail anyway.
...he eventually viewed God as an advanced and glorified man, embodied within space with a throne situated near a star or planet named Kolob, and measuring time at the rate of a thousand years per Kolob day.	Bushman, Widmer, Bloom, Bergera	Way too much detail; wordy	replace with "he eventually viewed God as an advanced and glorified man, embodied within time and space"

I think recommendations 1 and 2 are okay, to reduce redundancy. For #2, I do think it is important to say that Smith considered humanity and God to be the same type of being, but that is covered in the succeeding paragraph.

That leads to recommendation #3. I think that the first point, that he thought God is a glorified man, is very important, and a key to defining Smith's theology. Also important is the fact that God is embodied within space and time, although perhaps we could say more about what this means. (It really means that Smith did not think that God was the universe's sole "necessary being," but I'm not sure we want to use philosophical jargon here.) I think we need to specify Smith's innovation vis-a-vis contemporary Christian theology. For example, we could say that Smith "eventually viewed God as an advanced and glorified man, embodied within space and time, and the son of a higher god." As to the info about Kolob, I think we could probably move it to the footnotes. COGDEN 02:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Replacing with "he eventually viewed God as an advanced and glorified man, embodied within time and space" was my initial recommendation. I have problems with the "son of a higher god" because Bushman stops short of saying that. As far as I can see, he doesn't imply any higher gods, and is careful to note that Smith's multiple "gods" are not distinct willful personalities, but are unified in sort of a Trinitarian sense. I think the "vast hierarchy of gods" later on in the paragraph should adequately cover the point. – Adjwilley (talk) 04:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Bushman notes Smith's doctrine that God had a father on page 544. Bushman's statement that the plural gods were not "distinct willful personalities" was to distinguish Smith's belief from polytheism. I think the idea that Smith thought God had a father is a point worth noting explicitly. Reference to a "hierarchy" could just mean a hierarchy of lesser gods than the Father.COGDEN 07:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I had missed that. I read the section on King Follett a few pages before expecting to find it there. I'm fine with mentioning it, but I think we should choose the wording carefully so as to not imply polytheism (following Bushman's example). Perhaps it could be mentioned further down in the paragraph like so: "The ability of humans to progress to godhood implied a vast hierarchy of gods, with God himself having a father" or something along those lines. – Adjwilley (talk) 15:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I re-phrased the Book of Mormon sentence, and was considering pipe-linking "an angel" to "Angel Moroni" but held back. I hit "Save page" prematurely, thus the confusing edit summary. I seem to remember something about the angel not being identified by name until later, so I didn't want to make a potentially controversial edit without discussion. – Adjwilley (talk) 18:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Ethics and behavior

Statement in Article	Citation	Problem	Recommendation
...and by issuing revelations, Smith supplemented biblical imperatives with new directives.	No citation	No citation; his reliance on revelation is outlined at the beginning of the revelations section.	Shorten and source.
One of these revelations, called the "Word of Wisdom," was framed not as a commandment, but as a recommendation. Coming at a time of temperance agitation, the guideline recommended that Saints avoid "strong" alcoholic drinks, wine (except sacramental wine), tobacco, meat (except in times of famine or cold weather), and "hot drinks."	Brodie, Bushman, Smith	Word of Wisdom belongs (and is) in the Revelations section. Has little to do with ethics.	Delete. This is all covered above.
Smith and other contemporary church leaders did not always follow this counsel.	Brodie, Bushman, and Ostling, all noting that Smith drank wine from time to time	Presumably this is to show that Smith broke the Word of Wisdom. I read the reference in Brodie, and she was talking about how Joseph's tolerance of human frailty was endearing. Bushman says, "The Saints differed over how rigorously to apply the Word of Wisdom. Some were inclined to make exact compliance a requirement of membership. Others were more relaxed. Joseph drank tea and a glass of wine from time to time. It was left to a later generation of Saints to turn the "principle with a promise" into a measuring rod of obedience."	Delete. Replace perhaps with cited material saying that Smith made no claims to perfection.
In 1831, Smith taught that those who kept the laws of God had "no need to break the laws of the land." Nevertheless, beginning in the mid-1830s and into the 1840s, as the Mormon people became involved in conflicts with the Missouri and Illinois state governments, Smith taught that "congress has no power to make a law that would abridge the rights of my religion," and that they were not under the obligation to follow laws they deemed as being contrary to their "religious privilege."	Phelps (1833) and Quinn	Presumably this is another attempt to show that Smith was not consistent with his teachings. It is also poorly sourced.	Cut it back, source to Bushman if possible, and integrate into the last paragraph of the section.

For #1, I think the first sentence of the section could be re-written, "Smith said his ethical rule was, "When the Lord commands, do it," meaning that revelation from God would supersede earthly law." (Need to find a citation for that, but I don't think it will be too difficult.)

Page 441 of Bushman's book should do. – Adjwilley (talk)

I agree with deleting the "Word of Wisdom" material, given that it is covered in the "Revelations" section, and it kind of shoe-horned into this section because it didn't really fit elsewhere. But I have a problem with how the Word of Wisdom is described in in that section. The revelation never prohibited "alcohol." In fact, it said that "mild drinks" made of barley (i.e., beer) were okay. Also, I think it is a modern Mormon anachronism to exclude the part about eating meat sparingly. Also, the fact that Smith didn't always practice it is important. One must not be left with the impression that Smith was a teetotaler. Your concern about Smith's "frailty" or "perfection" is, I think, not the issue, because the Word of Wisdom was not a moral issue then, as it is today within the post-Temperance LDS Church. What if we just copy and past this part into the "Revelation" section to replace what is there?

I agree about the meat sparingly part, and I agree that we should point out that it did not become a "measuring rod of obedience" until later (the end of the prohibition I think). I think the "strong drink" wording is ok, though the sourcing there is directly to the original revelation. Bushman actually doesn't use the term; he simply says it counseled the brethren to give up tobacco and alcohol. I think the sacramental wine detail is a little too much.

My impression that the paragraph was meant to point out a perceived inconsistency was based, in part, on the last footnote which was really hammering the point that Smith drank wine "with relish" and "without apology" as if there were something there to prove. – Adjwilley (talk)

I agree the last paragraph needs to be rewritten. But its purpose is not at all (or shouldn't be) to show that Smith was inconsistent. It is to discuss Smith's ethical relativism and pragmatism. He was quite consistent in his relativism and pragmatism, right from the beginning, and I think the Nephi vs. Laban ethical quandry deserves mention here, which shows that he was a relativist/pragmatist even in 1829. Also, we can mention his statements, circa 1835 or so, when he began to perform illegal priesthood marriages based on a claim that God's law took precedence over the law of Ohio. Revising this section is going to require a fresh look at the secondary sources, however.

Agreed. I will put that on my list of things to do. – Adjwilley (talk)

Finally, with the Word of Wisdom materials removed, I'm considering whether this section could be merged with the "political views" section. COGDEN 03:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to review these proposals and comment. I value your opinions, and I feel much more comfortable knowing where you stand. – Adjwilley (talk) 04:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I have made the proposed edits, and in the process reverted the changes to the lead again. It appears our IP fried has created an account and re-made his changes. I'll grand him that what he views as a grammatical error is a tad confusing ("Published as the Book of Mormon") and should probably be tweaked. – Adjwilley (talk) 18:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

History and Eschatology

I have long felt that this section was kind of a weird collection of seemingly random tidbits of information that aren't extremely relevant to an understanding of Joseph Smith himself. Yes, he wrote things that seemingly re-arranged pieces of history, but that in itself was not his intent. Yes, he had a millennial point of view, but that can be said in a single sentence elsewhere. My original intent was not to remove the whole section, but as I got into it I realized that much of the information was poorly sourced, irrelevant, and/or redundant. So I am proposing that we delete the section, and move non-redundant pieces elsewhere in the article. In the table below, I have outlined every sentence or phrase in the section with my rationale for moving or deleting them, as well as some space for comments. – Adjwilley (talk) 04:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Statement in Article	Citation	Problem	Recommendation	Comments
Smith taught that during a Great Apostasy, the Bible had degenerated from its original inerrant form, and the "abominable church," led by Satan, had perverted true Christianity.	Hullinger	Unfortunately I don't have this book, but does it really say the Bible was inerrant and that the "abominable church" was lead specifically by Satan? I can't put my finger on the exact problem, but the sentence seems off to me, compared to what I've read. Also, this is partially covered in the Early Life section where it says Smith discovered that "all the current churches were false."	Delete redundant parts and move the rest to a paragraph on Smith's bible translation (I'm planning a new paragraph under Revelation).
He viewed himself as the latter-day prophet who restored those lost truths via the Book of Mormon and later revelations	Hullinger (describing how the Book of Mormon solved biblical controversies)	We've already got the bit about Smith viewing himself as a prophet elsewhere, and we now have an entire section on the Book of Mormon and later revelations.	Delete (already covered elsewhere)
He described the Book of Mormon as a literal "history of the origins of the Indians."	Bushman and Roberts	There's not a real problem with the sentence, though it is picking out one of many interpretations that Bushman is discussing. Also, Bushman didn't actually use the word "literal." Nevertheless, this information is more or less duplicated in the second paragraph on Book of Mormon.	Delete (already covered elsewhere)
The book called the Indians "Lamanites," a people descended from Israelites who had left Jerusalem in 600 BCE	Smith (1830), Phelps (1833)	This information is completely duplicated in the first paragraph of the new "Book of Mormon" section, where it is better sourced.	Delete (already covered elsewhere)
and whose skin pigmentation was a curse for their sinfulness.	Smith (1830) Quoted in Brodie.	Quotes one interpretation of the primary source material (that being the Book of Mormon) but ignores the other side of the coin presented in Bushman, that the Book of Mormon "champions the Indians' place in world history, assigning them a more glorious future than modern American whites."	Delete, or move to another section, expanding slightly and stating Bushman's interpretation along with Brodie's. I favor deletion, because it's a whole lot of detail that doesn't really say much about the man. (This kind of detail belongs in the Book of Mormon article.)
Though Smith first identified Mormons as gentiles, he began teaching in the 1830s that the Mormons, too, were literal Israelites.	Brooke and Shipps	Not sure what those sources say, but it certainly doesn't fit with what Bushman says. He says, "If the Gentiles shall hearken unto the Lamb of God...they shall be numbered among the House of Israel...God calls upon modern Christians to assist in the restoration—and to become Israelites themselves." (103-104)	It is an interesting doctrine, but if you correct the sentence, it really doesn't belong in a section on History. Delete
Smith also claimed to have regained lost truths of sacred history through his revelations and revision of the Bible	No citation	Did he actually say "lost truths of sacred history"?	Move to a future paragraph under "Revelations" on the bible revision and source.
For example, he taught that the Garden of Eden had been located in Jackson County, Missouri,	No citation	Interesting factoid, but probably belongs somewhere else.	Delete or move (I recommend to a footnote in the Missouri subsection)
that Eve's partaking of the fruit was part of God's plan	2 Nephi 2:22–25	Primary source. Interesting, but more relevant under Cosmology	Delete (preferred) or source and move to Cosmology
that Adam had practiced baptism	No source, or sourced with next statement	Interesting, but again, tells us little about Smith	Delete (this is the reason we have articles on Mormonism, Mormon Cosmology, etc.)
that the descendants of Cain were "black,"	Hill, Donna (1977), Joseph Smith: The first Mormon (citing Book of Moses 7:22).	Sounds like an interpretation of a primary source. Bushman only mentions Cain once (page 98), and this is not the context.	Delete
that Enoch had built a city of Zion so perfect that it was taken to heaven,	Bushman 138–41 The source does kind of say that, but that certainly wasn't the main point of those three pages, and Bushman doesn't say that Smith taught that specifically.	No major problems	Modify (to reflect cited source) and Move to somewhere talking about Smith's ideal of building a Zion society (probably Missouri section)
Smith declared that he would be one of the instruments in fulfilling Nebuchadnezzar's statue vision in the Book of Daniel: that he was the stone that would destroy secular government without "sword or gun",	Bushman 521	Incorrect. If you read the page it is clear that the stone is the Kingdom of God. Smith only said he would be an instrument in setting up the Kingdom.	This information should be corrected and moved elsewhere. I think this particular concept of the the theodemocratic Kingdom of God being the stone (instead of, say, the United States) is important. Political views would be a good destination.
which would then be replaced with a theocratic Kingdom of God.	Brodie, Bushman, Bloom	No problems	Move with the above sentence.
Smith taught that this political kingdom would be multidenominational and "democratic" so long as the people chose wisely; but there would be no elections.	Bushman	No glaring problems	Move to Political Views section.
Jesus would appear during the Millennium as the ultimate ruler. Following a thousand years of peace, Judgment Day would be followed by a final resurrection, when all humanity would be assigned to one of three heavenly kingdoms.	Bushman 521, 536–37	The first bit about the Millennium is hardly unique to Mormonism, though I see no problems with keeping it elsewhere (Cosmology perhaps). The last bit is inaccurate (for a technicality related to Outer darkness), and is already covered under Cosmology.	Correct and Move non-redundant parts to Cosmology.

I haven't had time yet to look at this table in detail, but in general, my main concern is to ensure that the content and citations are not deleted unless we are able to take a good look at the proposed deletions.

I don't think we necessarily need a dedicated "history and eschatology" section, but there are a number of very significant elements of Smith's doctrine that should be presented somewhere in the article. For example, Smith's idea that Mormons were Israelites should be mentioned prominently, because it is an important theme of his teachings. Also very significant is his belief that the Indians were Hebrews, and that he believed that a significant part of his mission was their "restoration." Also, you cannot underestimate the importance of his New Jerusalem teachings, or his teachings about Enoch, particularly Enoch's United Order. The racial elements ("Lamanites" and the descendants of Cain and Canaan) of his teachings are also very historically significant, and ought to be addressed somewhere as well, perhaps in the "political views" and "revelations" sections. COGDEN 22:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting here. I have already made many of the changes above, but I have a list of the things not to drop in my userspace, and will make sure they find their way back into the article. I've already got some of it in the Political views Revelations section, and will add the rest soon. I need to get working on a dedicated Bible Translation paragraph for the Revelations section, where the Enoch material will fit nicely. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Gun

Has the photo of Joseph Smith's gun been removed to further Mormon POV?--John Foxe (talk) 14:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how replacing the strange gun photo is "Mormon POV", but that term certainly gets thrown around quite a bit. My problem with the gun photo is a problem that I have with many parts of the article: that it zooms in on these seemingly random little details, blowing them up in slow motion on a big screen, while glossing over other, more important details. With the gun example, there's a picture of a gun in the section on Smith's death. That's somewhat interesting. There's a gun. Then you zoom out. The gun is in Smith's hand. Hyrum is dead on the floor. Taylor and Richards are beating at mobsters' guns with their canes. Smoke fills the bedroom. There's a window visible on the left. Smith seems to be raising his hands, reminding us that he will raise his hands in the Masonic sign of distress when he gets to the window. This is the kind of interesting detail you miss when you zoom in too far.

In a related example of zooming in on strange details, I can only find two direct quotes from Smith in the entire "Life" section. The first is, "Smith shouted 'Hosannah!' " after Rigdon's inflammatory sermon (the "Hosannah!" is cited to Rimini. It doesn't show up in Bushman, though Brodie notes that the crowd shouted "hosanna to God and the Lamb"...Not sure if that was what Rimini was referring to.) The second direct quote is the "establish our religion with the sword" in the next paragraph.

So why does the article zoom in on these specific details? Why do we get Smith's "Hosannah!" (that Bushman and Brodie don't mention) but not his last words as he falls from the window (which Brodie and Bushman both mention)?

So back to the gun. Give me a good reason for zooming in on that particular detail, and we can keep it. I even have a more colorful photo of it here in my growing collection of Joseph Smith images. I also have photographs of a cane, John Taylor's watch, the bedroom Smith was killed in, the window he fell out of, the door with bullet holes in it, and Smith's grave. Give me a reason we should zoom in on the gun over any of those artifacts. – Adjwilley (talk) 15:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Mormons like to emphasize that Smith was a martyr, willingly laying down his life. "I am going like a lamb to the slaughter" is a line from D&C 135:4. But I can't think of another martyr who unloaded his gun into a mob coming to kill him. The gun's not just a "particular detail" or a "random detail" like a watch or a cane; Smith's use of the smuggled gun demonstrates that he had no intention of voluntarily laying down his life. (I can't see the gun in Smith's hand in that Christensen picture. The image is misleading anyway. The mob rushed the door, and the action was over in seconds. No one was beating anyone with canes.) To remove the image of the gun is an attempt to hide an inconvenient historical fact. Why would you want to do that?--John Foxe (talk) 18:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Aside from the obvious problems of using Wikipedia as a platform to refute what you perceive as being commonly-held beliefs, your argument has numerous problems. I'm not interested in arguing whether or not Smith was a martyr, but I'd like to point out that being a martyr doesn't necessarily mean just rolling over and letting somebody kill you. Besides, I can think of many religious leaders who in moments of rashness have engaged in physical violence. Peter cutting off the ear of the High Priest's servant comes to mind, as well as Moses killing the Egyptian. If I went over to edit the article on Jesus and I put in a picture of a whip with the caption: "Jesus used a whip to drive the moneychangers out of the temple" I would be laughed out of town. Also, I think your perception of the so-called "Mormon POV" is inaccurate.

The canes were used to deflect the guns that were being stuck through the door, and the watch is important because it broke, marking the time of Smith's death at "sixteen minutes past five" as Bushman notes in the very last words of the chapter.

That said, the point of view you have presented is an interesting one. Do you have evidence that Bushman or Brodie put extra emphasis on the pepperbox pistol to refute a perception that Smith was a martyr or was willingly laying down his life? – Adjwilley (talk) 19:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

My position is that the photograph of the gun symbolizes an aspect of Joseph Smith's story that Mormons want to play down and that to remove the photo is a deliberate attempt to advance Mormon POV. Wikipedia is about telling the whole story, not simply the one promoted by the LDS Church.

If it turns out that we're the only ones concerned with this issue, we could get a Third opinion.--John Foxe (talk) 22:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. I've commented on the gun issue before. I don't understand the viewpoints that we have to try to counterbalance the LDS Church's portrayal of Smith's life and death or advance what any of us think is an important aspect of his life. Let's try to get away from this approach and move to a focus on what reliable sources present. This is no place for advancing any sort of agenda, whether that is in harmony with or in conflict with the LDS Church's view. I don't think removal of the gun image is necessarily "a deliberate attempt to advance Mormon POV". I would generally assume good faith on that matter and take Adjwilley's rationale at face value. Based on how reliable sources discuss Smith's death, I do agree that focusing on the gun over other artifacts probably places some undue weight on an isolated aspect of the history. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with John Foxe's last post on one point. "Wikipedia is about telling the whole story, not simply the one promoted by _____________" (insert your name here.)

That said, I have re-read the pages in Bushman and Brodie and haven't found any extra emphasis on the gun. I'd never have known the gun was called a pepperbox pistol, if it weren't for Wikipedia. Brodie just calls it a six-shooter. – Adjwilley (talk) 04:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Why do you want to eliminate the picture of the gun? If the picture means nothing to you as a Mormon and it means a great deal to me as a non-Mormon, then why not leave it alone? You included a picture of a 21st century representation of the Golden plates, which implies that these items actually existed. I didn't object. You moved the drawing of Smith translating by looking in his hat to a less conspicuous place in the article. I didn't object. Those things are important to you and indifferent to me. In this case the photo of the gun is important to me and to the non-Mormon position; I believe removing it is, as Good Ol’factory says it's not, "a deliberate attempt to advance Mormon POV" because Smith's shooting at the mob before his murder is a story that the LDS Church would like to ignore. (When I went to Carthage Jail, I heard no mention of any gun.) Wikipedia is about telling the whole story, and if the Church wants to cover something up, we shouldn't be in the business of helping them.--John Foxe (talk) 15:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not that I don't like the photo. I believe, however, that Wikipedia is about telling the whole story, not simply the one promoted by User:John Foxe. The painting I proposed does a better job of telling the whole story. In addition to the gun, it depicts Smith, Taylor, Richards, Hyrum, the canes, the window, the bed (under which the canes and guns were hidden), the mobsters, etc.

Could we please leave your opinions of the LDS Church out of this discussion? "When I went to Carthage Jail, I heard no mention of any gun." is original research and has no place in this discussion. Instead, let's focus on the weight and attention that reliable sources give to the gun. – Adjwilley (talk) 17:10, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I really think we need to stop making reference to others' personal beliefs related to how one feels about the LDS Church. Wikipedia is not really about "telling the whole story", but it is about "telling the story that is told in reliable sources". Usually that is a pretty good reflection of the "whole story". But it's the whole story as reflected from the sources and not what we personally feel is the whole story. Let's focus on the sources, not our own beliefs or biases. Everyone has them, but we need to move beyond them and assume good faith that others are trying to do so when they say that they are. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The Christensen painting is inaccurate in a number of ways, but the gun is just what it is. In any case, if your objection is not to the gun per se, then add the Christensen painting but leave the photo of the gun as well. How could more information hinder the reader?--John Foxe (talk) 23:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

It is possible, of course, for an encyclopedia article to have to more than an ideal number of images. In this case, there's probably nothing wrong with having both as a compromise. However, I would think that ideally, the image about Smith's death in this article should be of a more general nature, with images of specific artifacts of the day he was killed (the gun, the bullet holes in the door, the pocketwatch, etc.) in Death of Joseph Smith. There's a special article specifically about the death, and that's where I would expect more detailed information and images to be found. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

To indicate with a picture that Smith fired a gun at his attackers stands at a far higher level of importance to the non-Mormon than images of bullet holes or a pocket watch. It reveals that Smith meant to kill his attackers, something the LDS Church tries to hide in its accounts. To remove such a picture is to bring this article into closer conformity with the account approved by the Church rather than allowing readers to grasp "the story that is told in reliable sources."--John Foxe (talk) 00:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Good Olfactory, for setting me straight on the "whole story" distinction. I'll admit a compromise would be nice right now, but I'm not quite ready for that just yet. The Death section is already a little crowded as it is, and so far there hasn't been a convincing argument for why a picture of the gun is better than a picture of any other artifact, like a picture of the door, (1, 2) the window (1, 2), the watch (1), a picture of Smith's grave (1, 2), etc. More importantly, John Foxe has given no argument comparing the article to what reliable sources say about the gun. We already give it a sentence in the text, pointing out that it's a pepperbox pistol (which is goes beyond what Bushman and Brodie say) with a footnote saying that three of the bullets found marks (which goes beyond what Bushman says). I would like to see John Foxe use reliable sources to logically prove his point. He should show that putting extra emphasis on the gun is WP:Due because that's what reliable sources do. If he cannot do this, he doesn't have an argument. – Adjwilley (talk) 01:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Said convincing argument must not include words like Mormon, non-Mormon, LDS, non-LDS, LDS Church, or Point of view. – Adjwilley (talk) 01:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

John Foxe wrote: "To indicate with a picture that Smith fired a gun at his attackers stands at a far higher level of importance to the non-Mormon than images of bullet holes or a pocket watch." Comments like this seem to me to be indicative of the distinction I'm trying to get at. I guess the best way to respond to this to make my point is with the classic—"sez who?" One person may think that; other non-Mormons might disagree or agree. But without sources that demonstrate the emphasis on the gun, it's just one person's opinion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Here's a nice summary from a non-Mormon perspective just to demonstrate that the notion isn't idiosyncratic. Actually I think privately we'd all agree that the appearance or non-appearance of a picture of a gun has significance in this article, but only I can say so openly. If it meant nothing to you, you'd say, "Fine, whatever" and move on.--John Foxe (talk) 22:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

As neither a Mormon or an anti-Mormon (i.e. member of a religious organization with a POV about Mormons or Smith), I have previously mentioned being a Smith and my hope that the article is well balanced. This means that if my forefather had a gun with him in that jail, and if bona fide references mention it, then no problem. However, MRM isn't just a 'non-Mormon perspective' - it is as biased, and POV-pushing as any of the LDS apologists Foxe claims to want to counterbalance. Bias on the one hand is to want to present a false picture of Smith as a pacifist martyred while in prayer. But equally ridiculous is to focus on the gun as a means of proving Smith was something more sinister than a guy rightfully trying to defend himself and his brother. An historian has no problem mentioning Smith's famous line about lambs and slaughter because they draw no religious inference from it - however, Foxe appears to because the POV agenda is to state that, if Smith came to jail with a little gun, it proves he wasn't a Prophet or that it is somehow not reconciled with his slaughter quote. An NPOV historian would also see no problem mentioning the gun, but not devoting too much to this fact. I for one wish this constant tug of war between extreme editors would cease. Pictures of bullet holes tell the story in more of a NPOV way because the reality is that two men were shot to death by a mob. It doesn't push either extreme agenda - LDS apologists or anti-Mormons. I personally object to either extreme, and the article's NPOV suffers for the tension. Best, A Sniper (talk) 02:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I think everything User:A Sniper says above is very reasonable and is the kind of approach I've been trying to advocate here in my comments, though less convincingly. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

It's an unusual prisoner who has a gun. In fact, not only did the Smith brothers have guns, they fired first. (What might have happened had Smith faced down the mob? Two of Smith's friends, who were unarmed, got out alive.)

The photo of the gun says nothing about Smith's religious claims; but it does say something about the conditions of his imprisonment and his poor judgment. Such information should not be deliberately hidden from the casual reader. At least A Sniper does not claim that the picture of Smith's pistol makes no difference. To Mormon, non-Mormon, and descendant alike, the photo of Smith's gun has an emotional content. I wish the Mormons would admit their objective: "Yes, the gun suggests something that we and the LDS Church would prefer to minimize, and since we're in the majority here, we want it removed."--John Foxe (talk) 14:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

John, I can't disagree with what you're stating about purposely keeping information from the public - that might fly if one is editing a book at one's own press, but not in an encyclopedia. If sanitizing the narrative to fit an agenda, no thanks. However, it does cut both ways - and I've stated so on this page in the past. Let's take Smith's beer drinking at Moeser's pub or love of a good cigar on the streets of Nauvoo - there are folks who wouldn't ever know this because it was edited out of history in Utah publications. Not cool. But on the other hand, you would probably focus on that same information in a further effort to discredit or illustrate hypocrisy. Neither building up an immaculate prophet statue or charlatan bashing is acceptable here - only verifiable, encyclopedic quotations from secondary sources. POV agenda pushing from either extreme isn't appreciated. Best, A Sniper (talk) 16:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I see this Mormon/LDS Church/martyr argument as being a straw man, and a waste of time. It's getting people riled up for no good reason, and is getting us absolutely nowhere. As Good Olfactory, A Sniper, and I have all said, we really need to focus on what the sources say. That's the only way we're ever going to reach a consensus here. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Just one more thing to mention, John - I personally have no emotional issue with my great-grandma's great-grandpa having a gun. In fact, it makes perfect sense to me that he would. However, for an encyclopedia to focus on the gun instead of the bullet holes (and the results of the killings) is to be carried away by agenda-driving. Cheers, A Sniper (talk) 18:23, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The sources all agree that Joseph Smith, who was prisoner, had a gun in his possession when he was attacked by a mob and that he fired first at his attackers. The actual gun exists, and there's photo of it in the article. The caption is completely innocuous. All of us now seem to agree that the photo of the gun is more important than say, pictures of canes or watches. I think we also agree that removing the picture is in the interest of the LDS Church, and keeping the picture is not. If we count noses, folks who want to remove it will win hands down; but Wikipedia will be the loser. No objective reader would want such information censored. Wikipedia's not about promoting the agenda of a church or burnishing the image of its founder.--John Foxe (talk) 19:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing this from the perspective of sources. I will respond to your first couple of sentences but ignore the rest about your personal opinions and LDS Church agendas and such. As you said, sources all agree that Smith had a gun in his possession and that he fired at his attackers. I don't know about the firing first bit, since by the time Smith fired his brother was lying on the ground with a bullet in his head. The text of the article currently states, "Smith fired a pepper-box pistol that had been smuggled into the prison," which is the information that all sources agree on. It states it clear and simple, and is not hidden in any way. Could you please explain now using the sources why we should further emphasize the gun by putting a picture of it in the article? ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

John, since apparently you are the author of the picture, I think there might be a chance you are having personal hurt feelings over its proposed removal. I hope you realize that it's nothing personal or about the quality of the photo! (At least it was mentioned somewhere that you were the author—I'm not sure if that is true or not.) ... Anyway, incidentally, I at least am not a Mormon as has been implied several times, so I do consider myself reasonably objective as an editor on the subject of the Latter Day Saint movement. I just don't see a need for the photo in this article when it is such a small part of the text. I can see a better case for using it on death of Joseph Smith, though. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, it seems an oddity that the image is used for this more general article, but not the specifically relevant article. I would expect the opposite. ...comments? ~BFizz 09:28, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Improper juxtaposition

I have long been annoyed by the citations in this article. Sometimes it seems like every clause is cited. The choppiness is distracting, making the article hard to read, and the frequent footnotes are enough to make an uninvolved editor wonder. (see WP:Citation overkill)

A problem I've noticed more recently is that this style of citing every clause allows editors to mix and mash different ideas from different sources together into a single sentence. Though this can potentially be helpful in preventing other editors from deleting some controversial claim, it also gives editors the freedom to perform original research, in the form of mixing different ideas or events in a way that reliable sources do not. In some cases, this improper juxtaposition is confusing, implying causal relationships between loosely related events, or tenuously promoting a point of view that was never intended by the authors of the individual sources.

I have provided a few samples below of sentences with too many citations, some of them implying things I haven't found in reliable sources.

• Smith may have considered giving up the translation because of opposition from his in-laws, but in February 1828, Martin Harris arrived to spur him on by taking the characters and their translations to a few prominent scholars.
• When Smith moved to Kirtland, Ohio in January 1831, his first task was to bring the Ohio congregation within his own religious authority by mitigating the new converts' exuberant exhibition of spiritual gifts.
• Redemption of Zion would have to wait until after the elders of the church could receive another endowment of heavenly power, this time in the Kirtland Temple then under construction.
• With [Smith's] knowledge and at least partial approval, recent convert Sampson Avard formed a covert organization called the Danites to intimidate Mormon dissenters and oppose anti-Mormon militia units. Sidney Rigdon was working to restore the United Order, but lawsuits by Oliver Cowdery and other dissenters threatened that plan. After Rigdon issued a thinly veiled threat in a sermon, the Danites expelled the dissenters from the county with Smith's approval.
• Mormon leaders began teaching that Smith was already among the gods, and some considered Smith to be an incarnation of the Holy Spirit, a doctrine now taught by Mormon fundamentalists.

There are a few similar problems with juxtaposition of sentences. These sentences are sometimes joined by red-flag words like nevertheless, despite, however, etc., but these problems aren't nearly as serious. In reading some of my own writing I realized that I have slipped into that style as well: a problem I intend to fix.

Over the next few weeks I would like to go through the article and try to combine these multiple citations into single ones. One citation should be enough for one sentence, and the citation generally should go at the end of the sentence. If I find cases where an entire sentence isn't supported by a reliable source like Bushman or Brodie, I would like to modify the sentence so that it does.

I would oppose any across-the-board policy of "one sentence, one citation." I think this would damage the style of the article, and make the footnotes much larger than they have to be. Either we will be left with a series of choppy sentences, or the footnotes will have to explain which part of the sentence the citation provides support for. If there are particular issues, I think we need to do this on a case-by-case basis. In some cases, long sentences can be split up, and in other cases, we may need to bolster the text with additional citations that make the exact connection. In some cases, the connection between clauses is non-controversial and needs no further citation.

I don't think we should be approaching this article as if text has to be deleted unless the citation is already included in the article and is used perfectly as-is. While the citations may be imperfect in some cases, many of the statements in this article are readily citable or non-controversial. We should not be changing any such statements simply because we do not yet have the perfect citation. Also, we don't need to find sources that say exactly what this article says, so long as what this article says is a noncontroversial reading of the sources, either individually or as a whole. Thus, the question should be, "Is this sentence as a whole either noncontroversial or supported by a noncontroversial reading of the (cited or uncited) sources?" In other words, our first instinct should be to ask whether the statement is supportable, not whether it is currently supported by the existing citations. COGDEN 21:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I agree that an across-the-board policy would be a bad idea. My intent was not to go deleting stuff willy nilly either (even uncited material, which I'm fine with). My view is that the article is already damaged and choppy from past edit wars, with multiple people trying to cram their two cents into certain sentences. I don't want to delete so much as re-arrange material as best I can, so that it tells the story more smoothly and in a less confusing way.

Here is a sample of what I might do to the first two examples I gave above. I have combined the sources at the end of the article, and removed many that were redundant. The two pieces of more "controversial" information seemed to be interpretations of primary sources from the 1830s.

• • • Smith may have considered giving up the translation because of opposition from his in-laws, but in February 1828, Martin Harris arrived to assist him. Harris took a sample of the characters and their translations to a few prominent scholars... (I dropped the "spur him on" clause, which didn't ring quite right and was cited only to an 1831 source)
    • After moving to Kirtland, Ohio in January 1831, Smith mitigated the new converts' exuberant exhibition of spiritual gifts, bringing the Ohio congregation within his own religious authority. (The "first task" bit that I dropped seemed like kind of a stretch, and was citing D&C 50 and Phelps)

Granted, I could probably do exactly the same work by looking for controversial interpretations of non-controversial sources, but it might be easier this way. I found these six examples above by looking for sentences that looked like they had too many citations. Then when I looked closer, various other problems started popping out. I'd be happy to fix these on a case-by-case basis, but I'd rather not have to write a paragraph on the talk page for each sentence I re-arrange. What if I do them individually with clear edit summaries, and then if somebody has a problem they can revert, or leave me a note and I'll can self-revert until the problem is worked out? ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:23, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Upon further thought, I think you're right here. An overhaul for the sake of citation style alone is not warranted. I'll try to stick with verifiablity and fix problems as I find them. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Kirtland Safety Society

The article reads "In 1837, the Kirtland Safety Society, a bank established by Smith and other church leaders, collapsed." Documents from the time and place show that Smith's "bank" was not a bank, and it did not "collapse." Several old documents I have scanned in and posted to my web site show that Smith set up a fake "bank" and took people's money from them as deposits, and then he spent the money for himself. The main article should mention this fact; the truth is not a violation of the "neutral point of view." Desertphile (talk) 03:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

You are correct that it was technically not a bank. I've heard it called a "quasi-bank" before. I remember that Richard Bushman (Rough Stone Rolling) calls it a bank (probably for simplicity's sake) and when I wrote the sentence you are quoting above, I was consciously following his example, with the intent of keeping the Lead simple. Later on in the article we call it by it's proper technical name: a "joint stock company to act as a quasi-bank" but that's a lot of words for the Lead. ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:33, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The JSJr article is not the best place to hash this out. Have you actually read the Kirtland Safety Society article? Do you have a legitimate historic scholarship on this topic that even comes close to supporting your extremely polemic POV? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 15:36, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Selling fake 'ancient artifacts'

The main article reads in part "The Smith family supplemented its meager farm income by treasure-digging...." Why is there no mention of the jail terms and fines that Joseph Smith and his mother were subjected to for selling fake "antiquities?" Shouldn't this be included? Wouldn't including this fact be the honest and proper thing to do? I am baffled over why it was not included, since it was a part of Smith's early life. Desertphile (talk) 03:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

By all means add this if you have bona fide secondary sources. Nobody is keeping anything out of this article, and any implication of dishonesty or impropriety is unfounded. Best, A Sniper (talk) 05:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Desertphile, there weren't any jail terms or fines.--John Foxe (talk) 14:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)