Talk:William Marks (Latter Day Saints)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

NPOV-Vio in "Issues with Apostolic Succession" section[edit]

This section cites repeatedly to Quinn, whose narrative it largely follows. Quinn was excommunicated from the LDS church, and reflects a likely non-NPOV. This section needs editors to review other sources on the facts and rewrite with NPOV. Examples of NPOV-vio interpretations presented as if they were facts include "Furthermore, while apostles had authority in unorganized parts of the church, they did not have authority in the stake of Zion, Nauvoo" and "However, church succession in Nauvoo revolved around one central issue: plural marriage" - Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 20:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


I understand your concerns, but I'm not sure that you can dispute Quinn's evidence. First, you need to actually show that you have read Quinn and understand the sources more generally. This sounds really dismissive, but too many people alter or flag things before they really know much about a subject. It's been done too many times on wiki pages related to Mormon stuff. So...prove that you know what's going on by using a legitimate source (published by an historian with a PhD from a real university) for an alternative explanation. Second, whether or not a historian has been excommunicated from the LDS church should not necessarily mean anything about their historical narrative's accuracy (at least as it is judged by competent historians). Third, the sentence "Furthermore, while apostles . . ." was exactly Emma Smith's reasoning according to William Clayton's diary--so perhaps there needs to be further clarification in the sentence. The paragraph already attempts to do this with its last sentence. Fourth, the sentence "However, church succession . . ." expresses a fairly mundane appraisal of why Marks, who supported annointings, washings, and proxy baptisms, was not chosen as the successor in July--after he almost was chosen as such (again according to William Clayton's diary). And, William Clayton even tells us that Marks and Rigdon were set aside due to their opposition to plural marriage. So...read Quinn, read his sources, and see if my reading is not a reasonable historical interpretation. 128.255.242.164 00:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)david-howlett@uiowa.edu

I don't have every relevant source in front of me right now, which is why I opened this discussion on the talk page rather than making any change in the article for now, hoping others would come forward with more info. On a different note, you seem to have referred to Clayton's journal repeatedly as the ultimate source, but there doesn't seem to have been any critical discussion of the reliability thereof or comparison with other sources. And, I have read (long ago) some critical reviews of Clayton's journal and its reliability, and I seem to remember there having been some significant issues there. Whether or not we have references to one historian with a Ph.D. from Yale, it only makes sense to try to bring in works from more than one historian and more than one primary source. The mere fact of Quinn's excommunication isn't dispositive of anything, but he has had his share of scholarly criticism (see e.g. from another Yale-trained historian, though one certainly with his own agenda). Our goal here isn't to stake out "a reasonable historical interpretation", it's to represent the facts with as neutral a POV as possible — two goals that are, to some extent, mutually exclusive. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 00:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your very reasonable, measured response. I was a bit hot-headed and dismissive in the above post. I do think that this section could use some improvement and balance. I added in most of the content after reading the original post on Marks (a post that seemed a bit naive about the politics of Nauvoo, to say the least). Let the discussion continue!128.255.242.164 01:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)david-howlett@uiowa.edu


The issue here isn't with the facts, but with the tone in which they are presented. The wording choices strongly imply that the LDS view is correct and that any other view is just silly. Just look at the title of the piece: "Issues with Apostolic Succession." This assumes that following the Brighamite apostles is the default position and that everyone else in the movement has just been "having issues" with accepting that for the past 170 years. That's obviously not a neutral point of view. --BenMcLean (talk) 20:15, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

I'm suggesting the DAB term be changed from "(Latter Day Saint)" to "(Latter Day Saints)" per common WP usage for individuals involved in the Latter Day Saint movement. See, for example, William Smith (Latter Day Saints), Martin Harris (Latter Day Saints), William Law (Latter Day Saints) and others. I think the proposal is fairly non-controversial and more of a housekeeping change than anything.Snocrates 23:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

This article has been renamed from William Marks (Latter Day Saint) to William Marks (Latter Day Saints) as the result of a move request. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

References[edit]

This article is dominated (9/14) in the inline citations by a single work . We need more variety; isn't there any other academic references on Marks? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 22:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)