Talk:Joseph Smith/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

edit warring about BoM and golddigging

Okay, so this edit was added, then removed, then edit warred by a few editors. It's probably a good time to invoke WP:BRD: in other words, it's been boldly added, boldly removed, but has not been boldly discussed.

Please discuss it here- I'll probably full-protect the article to prevent further edit warring if necessary. Note I'm not making a judgment for or against the content- just that it's been disputed, and if we are following BRD, it should stay off the page until there is consensus. tedder (talk) 18:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted it on the basis that I feel it is an extremely misleading "statement" attributed to Bushman, which is taking the source well of context. It was negative spin if everything, Foxe was trying to make it look like Bushman had directly stated the fact he added (which does not seem to be the cae), and as a result I've removed the text as it was misleading. Bushman is an apologetic LDS author, he did not "state" the claim Foxe was trying to pass off. If anything, large scale POV pushing and without a doubt synthesis. Routerone (talk) 18:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

So what's the exact quote from Bushman? That would prove if it is actually misleading, right? I mean, if Bushman did say that, would you be happy with the addition? tedder (talk) 19:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be the beginnings of a tit for tat edit war. As I read the paragraph it does seem a little slanted. We could flesh out the section by adding how Smith was acquitted of two back-to-back trials on the charges, how Smith "was well known for truth and uprightness; that he moved in the first circles of community, and he was often spoken of as a young man of intelligence and good morals" and how Reed thought the instigators were "bigots among the sectarian churches".

As far as the sentence at the root of the edit war, Bushman is referring to a specific perspective not a generally held opinion. No evidence is provided about how significant or insignificant this position is in the community at large. Let's be a little more careful about how we use quotes and keep them in context. This is too easily taken out of context. --^StormRider 19:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Storm Rider is absolutely correct on this one. Best, A Sniper (talk) 21:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

First of all, here's what I added—and just to a footnote:

Bushman notes that area residents connected the discovery of the Book of Mormon with Smith's past career as a money digger. "From that perspective, money-digging and the Book of Mormon were both fraudulent schemes." Bushman (2005, p. 117)

The article says that the "Book of Mormon brought Smith regional notoriety but also strong opposition by those who remembered Smith's money-digging and his 1826 trial near Colesville." I simply added a quotation from Bushman to the footnote believing it sensible to provide substantiation from an authority who's LDS. There's nothing misleading, no "negative spin," no POV pushing, no synthesis. It's just a quotation from a fine historian and former Mormon bishop.--John Foxe (talk) 22:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the quote is about a specific perspective and according to this perspective some people tied gold digging and the BofM together. It is interesting that all of the very positive, first-hand information has been left out (some of them I mentioned above). Being acquitted by two courts of law in back-to-back trials may be considered significant. A position by upstanding members of society blaming religious bigots for frivolous lawsuits and persecution is also interesting.

Foxe is not responsible for excluding or including facts. He is free to choose which facts are pertinent. However, if others feel they are negative or overly negative then it is they have an opportunity to balance it with other facts from the same sources. Of course, doing so could result in article bloat. We then end up paring down both negative and positive tid-bits to arrive at the basic facts of this topic. --^StormRider 22:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with adding in additional material (so long as it's grammatical), but my intent was simply to substantiate the sentence in the text with a Bushman quotation. I think most of us would agree that he comes as close to being a neutral secondary source as anything out there.--John Foxe (talk) 00:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the raw citation to Bushman here is worthwhile, because it supports the main text. However, I think the quote is out of place in this sentence. The sentence that has the footnote isn't specifically about the lawsuits. Mention of the 1830 trials occurs in the next sentence, and those trials were triggered more directly by the Colesville exorcism, not so much by the discovery of the Book of Mormon, which didn't even happen in the Colesville area. What if that part of the footnote just reads: "{{Harvtxt|Bushman|2005|p=117}} (noting that area residents connected the discovery of the Book of Mormon with Smith's past career as a money digger)".COGDEN 01:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

That's certainly fine with me.--John Foxe (talk) 02:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Tedder, any objection to making this change and then unprotecting? I could do it if you prefer. After a cooling-off period, I think the involved editors have moved beyond it, and it has morphed into something else now. Maybe something like the above edit would remain stable. COGDEN 02:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

No objection. I'll unprot, you make the change. If any of the editors who have been here recently have edit warred, they've been warned. tedder (talk) 06:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit Wars

Goodness people. If there is this much debate about Joseph Smith, Jr., I would recommend making a new page for "Critique of Joseph Smith, Jr." or something of the like. Editing wars do not help people who are trying to get information from Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.248.140.146 (talk) 22:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

It exists already: Criticism of Joseph Smith, Jr.. ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 23:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

LDS POV?

Apparently stating that Smith was the "first prophet" of the latter day saint movement is LDS POV and therefore isn't warranted in the article. To an extent I can see where that point stems from considering those outside the movement don't consider him to be a prophet; but as those inside of the movement see him as a prophet shouldn't it be mentioned as such just to signify that?

Afterall; the articles on other claimed prophets are treat very, very differently. For example look at this in the lead paragraph of the article Muhammad:

"the greatest law-bearer in a series of Islamic prophets and by most Muslims the last prophet as taught by the Qur'an"

• Now look at this fron the article Isaiah:

"He lived approximately 2700 years ago and was a prophet in the 8th-century BC Kingdom of Judah"

• Now the article Elijah:

"was a prophet in Israel in the 9th century BC"

Those are just three out of numerous examples, so why is it that Joseph Smith is treated differently from them? Afterall the "prophethood" of non of those individuals has even been proven as authenic just as people would say about Smith's, and likeywise they are not beyond criticism. They are religious figures and hence the same rules apply, so why is it if the word "prophet" is used in this page people come crying out saying "POV! POV!".

Because if it is "POV" then those articles above are also POV Pushing then. So really considering Smith is regarded as the first of a line of prophets by those in the LDS movement, it should be stated as "first prophet", this is not POV as the usage of the words "of the latter day saint movement" changes the context so it shows that only in their POV they regard him as such, it is not asking others to agree. They regard him as a prophet like it or not, and other professional encyclopedia pages call him "the latter day saint prophet". So halt the prejudice against the LDS please. Routerone (talk) 08:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The first sentence of the Muhammad article says he was the "founder of the religion of Islam"—virtually the same wording as in our lead. Isaiah and Elijah were not founders of religions.--John Foxe (talk) 10:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

For those who reverted the small edit as "POV", there's POV and then there's POV. Just because it illustrates a different Point Of View doesn't make it revert-worthy. If you're going to revert based on the argument of "POV", then please include in your edit summary the reason why the longstanding Point Of View is better than the proposed Point Of View. Excluding the LDS Point Of View is a departure from the "Neutral Point of View", which encompasses all relevant Points Of View, so the mere argument that an edit is "LDS POV" is worthless without further explanation.

Routerone, while your point is well taken, the first sentence of the fourth paragraph opens by stating that "Smith's followers consider him a prophet". Smith's "prophethood" is not missed in the intro.

I, for one, don't find any strong reason to use "founder" instead of "first prophet", nor vice versa. Both communicate a little nugget of information that the casual reader might otherwise miss. Perhaps we should use "founder and first prophet"? ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 15:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with B Fizz. Now in regards to your comment Foxe, yes it does say Muhammed was the founder of islam, but it goes on to say that quote that I placed here which asserts him as being the final prophet as "established fact", and just because Elijah and Isaiah are not founders of religions does not change the equation of how the articles state them as prophets (when others disagree). Although I do regard these old testament personages as prophets, its quite tedious of the contrast in treatment to which those claimed prophets recieve in relation to the LDS claimed prophet. Joseph Smith afterall is a religious figure and is respected as such by his followers, despite this his article is written and treat very differently from that of any other. Routerone (talk) 16:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm satisfied with B's compromise.--John Foxe (talk) 18:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I have a somewhat different issue, with the word "first". Some Mormons might take issue with that, as Mormon doctrine actually teaches that Adam was the religion's first prophet. A Mormon might say that Smith was the first latter day prophet. Because of this issue, I don't think we even need to raise the prophet issue in the first sentence. We already cover it well in the final paragraph of the lead. Let's just stick with "founder". "Founding prophet" would be another option, but I think that's unnecessary. COGDEN 19:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I was aware of this point, COgden, and was hoping that the current wording would imply "first latter day prophet". In mathematical terms, consider the set of all "latter day prophets", according to the LDS movement. Joseph Smith was the first. "Joseph Smith...was the founder and first prophet of the Latter Day Saint movement", I feel, upholds all of the correct implications. But I wouldn't strongly object to removing "first" and simply saying "founder and prophet of". "Founding prophet" feels a little odd. ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 19:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer "founder and prophet", because it removes the ambiguity caused by "founder and first prophet", and accurately summarizes the contents. tedder (talk) 19:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd be okay with "founder and prophet". Responding to B Fizz, Mormons themselves never use the term "Latter Day Saint movement", but that secular concept might correspond in some Mormon minds to the more timeless Mormon religion that traces back to Adam. Maybe part of the problem is that Mormons themselves never use the term "Latter Day Saint movement", so it's unclear whether the idea of firstness would correspond with the secular view. COGDEN 22:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the big issue here remains the POV issue. Thanks for sticking to your guns, Routerone. My POV smells bias. As for the discussion I have always viewed Joseph as the first prophet of the latter-day dispensation, or alternatively the first prophet of the restoration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiandy1 (talk • contribs) 02:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Sick and tired

Of people trying to tell me what I can and cannot do to this article, outside of the LDS field here on wikipedia I am free to add and edit anything (which is legitimate obviously) to any single page on wikipedia and its rare that people will kick up a fuss about it. Yet here it is "revert, revert, revert" and ultimately I find it obnoxious that there are people presiding over this article thinking they are arbitrators of what can be altered/added to the page.

I try to add in genuine first hand accounts from Martin Harris and I'm reverted for being "apologetic" and "point of view pushing" and even for quoting a book which is skeptical of Mormonism, how does that work out? This article and many other LDS ones are floated on first hand accounts from Smith's associates, but yet their accounts only seem to be "allowed" if they suggest something against him and anything positive is rounded off for being "bias" which again I think is unjust and pathetic. John Foxe, you don't like it if I remove your cited content without an explained reason, yet you just went and done the same thing to me, how is that justified? There was nothing wrong with the content I put in that page, it basically explained the following things:

• How Smith found his seer stone in a well he once dug (from Mormonism Unvailed)
• How Harris claimed Smith could find lost objects with his seer stone (from Harris himself)
• How Harris claimed he switched Smith's seer stone to test his claims (from Harris himself)

But now, if Harris said something which was slightly against Smith, I am sure it would be quoted in there, exaggerated and defended no doubt. My points were cited, and are without a doubt useful to the article, this "revert" culture needs to stop, if people want to change this page then they should have the right to do so, rather than one editor building an incredibly negative bias version of the page and then reverting anyone who tries to change it. Is that justice? Is that what this website is all about? Routerone (talk) 15:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The Harris material is inconsequential, the sort of stuff that should be—and I think may have been at one time—in the notes. But you have deliberately excised other cited material for no other reason than that it doesn't please you. Please explain the reason for those deletions.--John Foxe (talk) 15:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The fact that the first line of the article gives him the unqualified label of "prophet" is already a sign of POV trouble. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Routerone, what you added is very good material, and belongs in Wikipedia, but I think it is just too much detail for this main summary article. Much of this information is already in the sub-articles Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr. and Life of Joseph Smith, Jr. from 1827 to 1830, where we have more room to cover specific stories by Harris, Chase, and others. This article is pretty large as it is, and I think we need to carefully justify any additions that make it larger. At the same time, the article is pretty lean, so we need to carefully justify deletions as well. COGDEN 17:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Baseballbugs, the article states that he is a "prophet of the Latter Day Saint movement". It's not an "unqualified label", it's a historical fact. If the article asserted he were a "true prophet" or "sent from God" prophet, then that would be POV. See Routerone's argument in previous discussion for comparison with other examples such as Elijah. As for Duke, Foxe, and Routerone, I dare you to stop using the shiny revert button. Instead, try to actually integrate the new and old material into a form that is acceptable by everyone. Reword. Reorganize. Use your brain. I'll try and help when I have more time. And most certainly work with sub-articles as COgden has suggested. ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 17:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Someone being a "prophet" is a matter of opinion, not historical fact. Note the careful wording of the lead in the Muhammad article. This one should follow the same approach. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you can just remove a tag just because you don't like it. I'll take this to WP:ANI and get a ruling on the matter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Bugs, your comment just goes to reinforce the problems that occur when our critics try to define our history and beliefs. The title 'Prophet' is not merely an opinioned title, it is the official term used to describe an office within the Melchizidek Priesthood. It is no more biased to call Joseph a prophet than to call John Paul a pope. For Muhammed (strawman rhetoric) the title is not reflective of office. If the anti-Mormons didn't rule the roost here these types of errors would have been gone long ago. Hold your ground, Routerone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiandy1 (talk • contribs) 13:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANI would be inapropriate for this cause, we have already had a discussion on this and reached a concensus just last week, you are disrupting that. Routerone (talk) 17:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

What I'm asking for is a ruling on whether you have the right to delete a cn tag just because you don't like it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

As for the "seer stone" stuff, that is way too much detail, whose obvious purpose is to try to "prove" that Mormonism is true, and that's not the purpose of wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

No it isn't, its merely stating first hand account information from actual sources. That's used a lot here on the lds wikipedia pages, however its only when positive stuff is used that people protest against it, people don't mind if its skeptical of Smith. The article is too negative overall anyway, and plus saying he recovered a seer stone in a well is hardly "proving" mormonism true is it? Is that what you're scared of? Routerone (talk) 18:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• I don't understand why we can't use "a qualifier for "Prophet," as we do in articles of other significant religious figures - Muhammad ("is regarded by Muslims as a messenger and prophet of God"), Jesus ("which views him as the Messiah foretold in the Old Testament"), Gautama Buddha ("In most Buddhist traditions, he is regarded as the Supreme Buddha"), Sun Myung Moon ("Moon has said, and it is believed by many Unification Church members, that he is the Messiah and the Second Coming of Christ"), Bahá'u'lláh, ("He claimed to be the prophetic fulfilment of Bábism, a 19th-century outgrowth of Shí‘ism, but in a broader sense claimed to be a messenger from God referring to the fulfilment of the eschatological expectations of Islam, Christianity, and other major religions.") Is there no construction that is acceptable beyone the POV statement that he is, in fact, a Prophet? Hipocrite (talk) 18:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Maybe the fact he had smuggled a gun into his jail cell indicates that he had an idea what was coming, although I'm not sure simple intuition qualifies as "prophecy". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how any local consensus to describe him as "prophet" can be respected. Believing Smith to be a prophet is pretty much the belief that distinguishes the LDS from the rest of the world. There's no reason to belittle that belief, but it is far from universally held.—Kww(talk) 18:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Routerone's revised wording "considered to be a prophet by adherents of the Latter Day Saint movement" seems factual and neutral to me. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

That construction is fine by me. Also acceptable is a non-piped "Prophet, seer, and revelator" Hipocrite (talk) 19:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I can live with " ... considered to be ... ". Unpiping "prophet, seer, and revelator" wouldn't be acceptable to me, as it would imply that there actually are such things as prophets, seers, and revelators. Even Moses, who is considered to be a prophet by more religions than any other man, gets a qualifier of " ... according to the Hebrew Bible ... " on the claim of being a prophet.—Kww(talk) 19:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The reason I would say unpiping works is because "Prophet, seer, and revelator" is apparently an ecclestical title (according to the article.) It would be like saying Saint Peter was the first pope. Hipocrite (talk) 19:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Using the term "first prophet, seer, and revelator" gives the LDS Church an implicit ownership of him, and isn't a neutral point of view. The prophet, seer, and revelator article currently begins by defining the term as "an ecclesiastical title used in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". But Smith is also the prophet of non-LDS churches. COGDEN 19:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree.--John Foxe (talk) 19:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Ok. I retract my acceptance of non-piped linkage as enough. Hipocrite (talk) 19:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• Routerone's revised wording "considered to be a prophet by adherents of the Latter Day Saint movement" seems factual and neutral to me. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I've been gone all day. Baseball Bugs's post immediately above mine was the suggestion on WP:ANI; I really think it's better wording to (a) be consistent with other "religious leader" pages, and (b) I'd think that the more pro-LDS folks would especially be for that. On the other hand, using scare quotes, like some versions had, is a bad thing. tedder (talk) 03:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with that language, but in that case I think the piped link should be to the prophet article rather than the Prophet, seer, and revelator article. COGDEN 04:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if this helps or if I'm just stirring the pot but I've noticed, if the subject is real historical person, their placement in the various divinity is subject to qualifiers. i.e. Muhammad "is regarded by Muslims as a messenger and prophet of God", Gautama Buddha "In most Buddhist traditions, he is regarded as the Supreme Buddha", Sun Myung Moon "it is believed by many Unification Church members, that he is the Messiah and the Second Coming of Christ", Bahá'u'lláh "claimed to be the prophetic fulfillment of Bábism", and, of course, Jesus "central figure of Christianity, which views him as the Messiah foretold in the Old Testament" and "most Christian denominations believing him to be the Son of God"
But, if the person themselves is not historical then the wording can stand as statement. i.e. Elija "was a prophet in Israel in the 9th century BC." or Isaiah "was a prophet in the 8th-century BC Kingdom of Judah.", or Moses "was, according to the Hebrew Bible, a religious leader, lawgiver, and prophet" (and even that is qualified).
So it looks to me like we have a de facto standard of giving fictional characters the benefit of the doubt while holding historical persons to a higher standard. That's my 2 cents. Padillah (talk) 12:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Implications

Apparently saying that someone is a prophet means something different to me than it means to many of my fellow editors here at Wikipedia. I see no trouble in saying "Elijah was a prophet of Israel", "Moses was a prophet of the Old Testament", or "Muhammad was a prophet of Islam". To me, these are not assertions of the veracity of the subject's divine calling, but rather, statements of cultural status: who these people were with respect to some culture or time frame. Does anyone truly feel that writing "Joseph Smith was the founder and prophet of the Latter Day Saint movement" is an unbalanced statement? It clearly conveys who Joseph Smith was to the Latter Day Saint movement: not just its founder but its prophet. Does anyone truly feel that this statement implies that his true prophethood is an undisputed fact?

I find it bizarre that the argument is raised by several editors that the statement implies more than I think it does. I again refer to the Elijah example: Elijah ... whose name means "Yahweh is God," was a prophet in Israel in the 9th century BC. Is that an inappropriate POV? No. It is a statement of cultural regard, and I doubt that anyone really misunderstands that, whether or not they believe that Elijah communicated with the divine. ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 04:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is an inappropriate POV. Statements that someone is a prophet, or possesses any particular connection to any supernatural phenomenon, need to be qualified with what group of people believes it to be true.—Kww(talk) 05:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Hence my support for the statement "founder and prophet of the Latter Day Saint movement". Isn't that obvious enough? ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 05:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

May I briefly attack this from another angle? Encyclopaedia Britannica's summary of him is "Mormon prophet and founder of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." Reference.com, licensing from Columbia University Press, states that "As prophet and seer he founded (1830) his church in Fayette". Neither feel the need to say "adherents believe him to be a prophet" because its redundant and obvious. Cut out the obvious; say he's a prophet. The clear implication is that "he is believed to be a prophet by believers". ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 05:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

It said "...prophet and founder of the Latter Day Saint movement...", which is somewhat different. It wouldn't surprise me at all if I were told that the Encyclopedia Britannica's editorial board had people on it that believed in the existence of prophets, which means that the sentence wouldn't necessarily seem out of place in their review. Consider how you would treat it if the assertion was that the person being discussed was a warlock, wizard, elf, or some other status that you consider to be mythical. "Prophet" falls in the same class.—Kww(talk) 05:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

While there certainly are plenty of people that don't hold belief in prophesy, most are capable of comprehending others' belief in such. Christianity, Islam, and Judaism—comprising billions of people—all profess belief in prophets. There really is no comparison with people who profess belief in wizards, elves, etc. I think I see what you're saying but I simply disagree. ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 08:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, if I'm not mistaken, the person who wrote the Brittanica article on Joseph Smith was Richard Bushman, a Mormon. But I don't see anything wrong with saying Smith was "the prophet of the Latter Day Saint movement". I think most people interpret this as a statement of his role within the faith. Even putting the faith aside, referring to someone as a prophet is like referring to them as a psychic, exorcist, or fortune teller--you can refer to them as such without believing they have supernatural powers. We even refer to people as false prophets, who are nevertheless prophets, just of the false variety. But if it's constantly going to be reverted, then maybe we ought to go with something more stable, even if slightly wordier.COGDEN 08:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, as a non-Mormon, I have no problem referring to Joseph Smith as "the founder and a prophet of the Latter Day Saint movement." Do you think this phrase is something we can all agree on and might remain stable over the long haul?--John Foxe (talk) 13:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Foxe. This is a small step towards me retaining my sanity. :) I'm sure that trolls will come along and remove "prophet" periodically (like they remove the word "Christian" from the LDS Church article). We can talk it out now and clearly show the reasons why that wording is neutral and accurate, and then perhaps put a permanent section on the talk page summarizing the discussion, or devise some other way to gracefully deal with said trolls. ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 17:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

This is an excellent example of the bias problem inherent in this article. Routerone is the only one trying to defend LDS context (which is quickly dismissed as a biased POV by LDS detractors). He posts an improvement and is quickly refused good will or courtesy of discussing his edit. Instead he is simply reverted and then maligned here. So then he is forced to hide a simple truth inside a hugely qualified sentence and made to feel it is his privilege to do so.

In the end "Joseph was a prophet of the LDS movement" becomes, 'LDS believed he was a Prophet.' Question, do Americans only 'think' or 'believe' Obama is the President? Does that need to be qualified. Joseph Smith was sustained by members to the office of Prophet, Seer, and Revelator. Prophet is an office he held. Even the primary children in the Church know the Article of Faith; "We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth."

Still, in the end, since this truth might place Joseph Smith in a positive light we must qualify it.

I call double standard and systemic bias. And if any want me to provide evidence, here it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiandy1 (talk • contribs) 14:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Like it or not, but 'lds context' is biased POV. Roughly 100% of all Americans know that Obama is President; that is a proven fact. Roughly 1.9% of all Americans 'know' that Smith was a prophet ... the other 98.1% most likely have a different opinion about that. Duke53 | ^Talk 15:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

"I call double standard and systemic bias." Call it what you'd like but nobody has the 'right' to force this 'knowledge' on the vast majority. Duke53 | ^Talk 15:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The correct statement should include the information that Smith is considered a prophet by members of the Latter Day Saint movement. Duke53 | ^Talk 15:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

One problem we have here is the plain meaning of the word and the use of it as a title. "So-and-so was a prophet" means two different things, depending on context. Going back to my earlier example, "David Duke was a wizard" is a clearly different statement from "David Duke held the title of Grand Wizard within the Ku Klux Klan". If the word "prophet" is meant as a title, the sentence structure has to make that distinction clear.—Kww(talk) 15:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Which is why I again refer to the wording that we worked out via consensus previously: "Joseph Smith, Jr. (December 23, 1805 – June 27, 1844) was the founder and prophet of the Latter Day Saint movement." Pairing the word "prophet" with the word "founder" clearly leads to the understanding that it is a title and a reflection of Smith's status within the Latter Day Saint movement. It clearly implies that the group of people who believe him a prophet are Latter Day Saints, and that it was within that group of people that he held the position of prophet. When it comes to first sentences, you have to say it short and simple, and I think this is the best sentence to accurately summarize Smith's life. Does anyone disagree to this? ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 17:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Also note that the first line of the David Duke article currently states that he is a "former Grand Wizard of the Knights of the KKK". Would anyone confuse this to be an assertion of magical powers? Probably not. Since it is followed by "of the Knights of the KKK" it makes clear the context. The wording I and others propose is identical in structure "[title(s)] of [context]". There are differences in these examples, though. Smith claimed divine revelation; I don't think Duke claimed magical powers. For that issue, see COgden's excellent argument above comparing "prophet" to labels like "psychic". ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 17:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Would it read better if we capitalized Prophet? using Kww's example, to say someone was a wizard or a Wizard does imply difference in meaning. To state that a person is "the Prophet of the church" implies the title of Prophet. But this comes with other issues. Joseph Smith Jr. is no longer the Prophet of the LDS Church, only a prophet. The Prophet of the church is currently Thomas S. Monson. Not to besmirch Joseph Smith Jr. or elivate Monson beyond his station but how do we reconcile this kind of situation. If Prophet is a title then it can pass (and has passed) to others... now what? Padillah (talk) 17:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I think a big problem here is we are contorting factual arguments to support existential positions. Dogma aside there is no way to prove that any given person is a prophet of a deity. But it's rather simple to prove the fact that Obama is President or that Duke held the station of Grand Wizard. These are facts we can look up. That a person truly gets direction and inspiration directly from Diety is not something that we can look up. I don't think the problem is with asserting what anyone believes, my issue comes from asserting that a person can be a prophet in the first place. I equate this with saying someone is a psychic or medium. Those are just as unprovable in my view. Padillah (talk) 18:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

If people are listening, Padillah seems to have figured it out. As we have been saying (but been dismissed as unreliable because we are apparently biased because we are Mormon according to Duke53) 'Prophet' is a title within the Priesthood structure, and so should be shown as such. It would be far more accurate to capitalize the word than to qualify it with a term like "LDS believe he was a prophet." We know he was. We sustained him as such. We sustained Monson as such.

Duke53, just because the majority of the world aren't Americans doesn't mean Barack Obama isn't the President. Majority perspective doesn't determine reality. If the majority of the world population is female are males unreliable, or vice-versa? You use a very odd logic.

Padillah, Joseph Smith was (and remains according to our belief that life does not end at the grave)a Prophet (holds the office in the Priesthood). But we usually use the term "The Prophet" to refer to the present and presiding Prophet.

Thus; Joseph Smith was, and is, a Prophet. Thomas S. Monson is the Prophet. We also believe Joseph was a small-p 'prophet' because he prophesied truth, but here, I understand Wikipedia contributors will not agree and so it is fine to not comment as such.

199.60.41.15 (talk) 21:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

I disagree that we are talking about a title, and I don't think we should capitalize the word "Prophet". It's not his title, but his role that we are describing. We call Smith a Mormon prophet just as we would call Zoroaster a Persian prophet, or Ezekiel a Hebrew prophet, or Epimenides a Greek prophet. Who cares whether, in a metaphysical sense, they actually had mystical contact with the otherworld? When we call someone such as these a prophet, we are just being descriptive, not metaphysical. COGDEN 21:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I care. "Prophet" isn't a factual description, and can't be used as such. "Greek warrior", "Greek king", "Greek man", "Greek woman", "considered by many Greeks to be a prophet."—Kww(talk) 22:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

COgden, I care. The title of Prophet is clearly equivalent to the Catholic title, 'Pope.' When an Apostle is newly ordained he is attributed or identified by the title "Prophet, Seer, and Revelator." Obviously this title is attributed and not reflective of past performance or it would not be mentioned in the sustaining list day one of the calling. So when we say Joseph Smith was a Prophet, it is not merely because he prophesied, but because he was ordained as such. And you don't have to be Catholic to state authoritatively that John Paul was the Pope of the Catholic Church. Unless, of course, you are anti-Catholic. If you ask LDS who leads the Church they will say, The Prophet." They may also say, President Monson, but these things are synonymous. To the conservative LDS member, the term 'Prophet' is a Priesthood calling or office. Remember the 6th Article of Faith which Joseph himself penned, ""We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth."

And please, enough with the argument that other faiths claim Joseph Smith so LDS POV can't be respected. So we can attack Mormon POV freely, but then magically show great sensitivity to the RLDS when it is convenient?. I personally doubt they like the article either.

Canadiandy1 (talk) 01:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

"Duke53, just because the majority of the world aren't Americans doesn't mean Barack Obama isn't the President" Huh ? What the hell are you talking about ? Duke53 | ^Talk 02:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

"... (but been dismissed as unreliable because we are apparently biased because we are Mormon according to Duke53)." Do N O T put words in my mouth; everybody but illiterates can recognize the fact that lds faithful are biased, so as to promote their faith. Duke53 | ^Talk 02:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Likewise, anyone not lds faithful is obviously biased so as to not promote the faith. For the record, I mostly share the same idea as COgden: "he was a prophet" is descriptive, not metaphysical. Let me reason in two different ways why I think this way.

1. Mathematical(ish) reasoning: Suppose we said that "Joseph Smith was a false prophet". LDS faithful would immediatly remove the statement; it is obviously a POV assertion. Suppose we said "Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God". Non-LDS people would immediately remove the statement; it is obviously a POV assertion. But "false prophets" and "true prophets" are simply subsets of the set of all "prophets". By saying Smith was a "prophet", we do not indicate whether he was a true one or a false one. Simply that he was one. An entirely correct statement from any point of view, since it leaves open the possibility that he might pertain to the "true" subset, or to the "false" subset.
2. Anecdotal reasoning: if someone, in an instructive setting, explained to me that "John Doe was a psychic", 1 thing would go through my head and 2 things would not. I would think: "John Doe didn't have psychic powers", because I don't believe in psychics. However, I would not think: "that person lied to me". Nor would I think "that person misused the English language". Because I find the label "psychic" acceptable to be used to describe those claiming psychic powers, despite the fact that I don't believe that anyone has psychic powers. Don't you all feel the same, and is it not the same with the label "prophet", regardless of what you believe? ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 04:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Duke53,

You wrote: "...everybody but illiterates can recognize the fact that lds faithful are biased, so as to promote their faith." So you managed to stereotype and show prejudice against both illiterate people and the LDS people all in the selfsame sentence?.

A sincere piece of advice if you will take it. If you are actually an LDS person sock-puppeting to make anti-Mormons look bad please don't. It may appear to support our position, but I don't believe the ends justify the means, and it just muddies the debate. In short, it's not what Jesus would do. Duke53, I'm not accusing you of this at all, just offering advice in case this is the reality. You may first take offense at this but if you think about it, it accepts the premise that there are misguided individuals among every faith, ours included.

Now, assuming Good Will, if you are really sincere in your vehement opposition of the LDS people, you are wasting your time and actually working against your own aims. By showing such disrespect and hateful speech you leave our position looking more valid and accurate in contrast to your statements.

So, my advice, change your methods, you aren't helping your cause at all. Doesn't bother me either way, just felt it was the neighborly thing to let you know this.

Canadiandy1 (talk) 05:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

I am really puzzled by the confusion that remains here. First, people need to know that the term prophet is used in two ways by the LDS. In essence, any individual who is given revelation which is pertinent to the future is acting prophetically. Thus, any individual (in or out of the Church) might prophecy and thereby be referred to as a small-'p' prophet. However, some individuals are formally ordained (by laying on of hands) as Prophets, Seers, and Revelators. Thus, Brother Jones may be a Bishop, a High Priest, an Apostle, and a Prophet at the same time (we actually have 15 prophets if you wish to pursue the issue). Unique to the LDS belief is the understanding that the authority of Priesthood offices are retained, based on worthiness, forever. So while Joseph Smith acted prophetically, he also held the titles of, Elder, Apostle, Prophet, President, and High Priest. It could also be said he was a Deacon, a Teacher, and a Priest. These are titles. In fact, broken down by office and (common usage)

Aaronic (preparatory) Priesthood Deacon (Brother Jones) Teacher (Brother Jones) Priest (Brother Jones) Bishop (Bishop Jones)

Melchizidek Priesthood Elder (Elder Jones) Seventy (Elder Jones) High Priest (Brother Jones) Patriarch (Formerly Patriarch Jones, new policy recommends Brother Jones) Apostle (senior Quorum member designated Prophet, or President Jones)

Consider this fact. Joseph Smith's father served for years as the Patriarch of the Church. While he was a patriarch (speaking of his role as a father) it would sound silly to state that Joseph Smith Sr. was the (small 'p') patriarch of the church.

Joseph Smith, while a 'p'rophet, was also a 'P'rophet by virtue of Priesthood office. Thus Pope John Paul, President Obama, Prophet Smith (though the term President Smith is more commonly used). So feel free to refuse to identify Joseph Smith as a 'p'rophet. But it is insensitive to both the RLDS and the LDS and erroneous to ignore the fact Joseph Smith was a 'P'rophet (an office in the High Priesthood). I don't follow the Pope, but I wouldn't deny he is one. You don't have to believe Smith was a prophet, to accept he was a Prophet in the LDS Priesthood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiandy1 (talk • contribs) 05:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The reason that I currently argue for the lowercase 'p' prophet is because non-LDS readers will not recognize the term "Prophet" to be a priesthood office, and will wonder why the 'p' is capitalized. I'm not trying to negate or throw out your argument, though. The issue is, in the first sentence, how do you quickly and correctly convey the most descriptive information about Joseph Smith? ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 18:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Moreover, Smith never really had an official title of "Prophet" during his lifetime. He was regarded as a prophet, but he never claimed to be the sole Prophet. He was the supreme prophet, certainly, but he recognized other prophets as well within the church, including the Twelve, and much earlier, Oliver Cowdery. The idea that Joseph Smith was "the" prophet dates from after Smith's death. To capitalize the term "Prophet" and treat it as his title, rather than just his calling or role, may reflect current LDS Church views, but it doesn't reflect Smith's own perspective. COGDEN 19:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

If you are referring to the use of prophet in the lede, it is perfectly acceptable with a small 'p' (bolstered by the wikilink). I agree that the use in the lede is clearly about the general topic of prophets and not the priesthood office itself (and wouldn't President of the High Priesthood been more appropriate during the Nauvoo period anyway?). Best, A Sniper (talk) 19:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he had several titles over the years, including First Elder, President of the High Priesthood of the Church, Priest and King, Trustee, etc. In 1835, he said that the role of the President of the High Priesthood was "to be a seer, a revelator, a translator, and a prophet". Thus, prophethood is defined as a role and a duty, rather than an office.COGDEN 19:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Given that history and restriction I'd argue that mention of his standing in the church would come second to his importance as it's founder. So the very first sentence doesn't need to mention "prophet" in any form. The second sentence can devote an appropriate amount of syntax to describing that he held the office of, what is currently reffered to as, Prophet. That would allow us to have a first sentence without controversy and a second sentence that mentions and expounds on the office he held explicitly presenting it as an office (or title, what-have-you) in the church. Padillah (talk) 20:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The end paragraph already says that his followers consider him a prophet, and I agree that mentioning it also in the first sentence is redundant and unnecessary, though I don't oppose the language "founder and prophet". COGDEN 20:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Important political figure

Several have proposed the removal of "and an important political figure in the United States" from the first sentence. I also agree with the removal. Was there anyone that objected to this removal? ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 01:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the statement is not accurate. You could probably say he was an important political figure in 1830s Missouri and 1840s Illinois. COGDEN 19:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

But then if so, wouldn't that be to specific in detail for a lead paragraph sentence? Routerone (talk) 19:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The detail isn't too specific given it simply explains the scope of his "importance" as a political figure. I still wouldn't put it in, though, for stylistic reasons. ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 00:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

First sentence

Opinions

"Joseph Smith (December 23, 1805 – June 27, 1844) was the founder and [a] [Prophet/prophet] of the Latter Day Saint movement."

My personal preference is to leave out the 'a' and use the lowercase 'p'. But as far as I can tell, the following editors would accept one of the above variations of the first sentence:

1. B Fizz (myself)
2. COgden
3. Routerone
4. John Foxe
5. Canadiandy
6. A Sniper
7. Tedder

As far as I can tell, the following editors express disapproval of all of the above variations of the sentence:

1. Padillah
2. Kww
3. Hipocrite
4. Baseballbugs

And as far as I can tell, the following editors have not made a clear statement either way, though they would probably err on the side of not using 'prophet':

1. Duke53

•As far as I can tell, this statement by me (from above) hasn't been deleted yet by 'well meaning' pro-lds editors: "The correct statement should include the information that Smith is considered a prophet by members of the Latter Day Saint movement. Duke53 | Talk 15:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)" 04:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I and others have argued that the proposed wording as seen above implies what you require. Since you haven't clearly disagreed with that notion, I categorized you under the 'unclear', but probably opposed, category. Feel free to re-categorize yourself, as Tedder did, since you can read your mind much better than I can read your mind. ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 06:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• My preference is actually for a capital 'p' prophet (title), but since only the Pope is afforded that privilege I would be comfortable having him referred to as a prophet (though this means something different). Canadiandy1 (talk) 02:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

Options and reasons

As far as I understand, the following are the various options and reasons behind each one. My stating an argument here is not necessarily an agreement with said argument:

1. Use 'founder and prophet of the Latter Day Saint movement'

• Why: including 'prophet' indicates Smith's status inside the LDS movement. Smith's friends, acquaintances, and followers—in other words, those which he had heavily influenced throughout his life—considered him a prophet. Therefore, this detail should be clear in the first sentence.
• Why not: 'prophet' implies that Smith had a supernatural ability. This is something impossible to prove; it should therefore not be asserted on Wikipedia per WP:V and WP:NPOV. (See reasons for #4)

2. Use 'founder and Prophet of the Latter Day Saint movement'

• Why: 'Prophet' with a capital 'P' indicates a title and position in the priesthood.
• Why not: (see reasons against #1). Also, it is not obvious to the non-LDS reader the meaning of capital 'P' Prophet used this way.

3. Use 'founder, prophet, seer, and revelator of the Latter Day Saint movement'

• Why: wikilink clearly indicates a position in the priesthood
• Why not: RLDS would disagree; Smith himself didn't claim the title (?). Wordiness/confusing to uninitiated.

4. Use 'founder of the Latter Day Saint movement', no 'prophet' in 1st sentence

• Why: Short; avoids issues with using 'prophet'; longer statement including 'prophet' can be used later in intro.
• Why not: fails to address a piece of information crucial to understanding Smith (see reasons for #1)

Further discussion

Have I accurately captured the essence of all perspectives in the discussion thusfar? I continue to support option #1, as my reasoning in the Implications section has not yet been addressed with a convincing counterargument. ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 01:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with the consensus version, though the version that Baseball Bugs suggested ("considered to be a prophet by adherents of the Latter Day Saint movement" seems the most neutral and best-written. Either way. But I'm certainly not against the word "prophet" or "Prophet" being there, especially if it's backed by "considered by..", which gives a little bit of flexibility in phrasing. tedder (talk) 01:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the "considered to be" wording, but it is difficult to also squeeze in the important label of "founder" into the same sentence. As I've expressed before, I feel that "considered to be" is implied and obvious to the reader with the consensus version. ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 04:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The qualification "considered to be" is itself a pointed disclaimer and not neutrality. Clearly readers will understand Wikipedia is not advocating that Smith's prophetic role is to be universally accepted dogma. Besides, it just makes it even more wordy and annoying. I mean, what some accept as Wikipedia should not, according to some, be what many scholars consider to be, an arguably small-'n' neutral agency who, as is reported, is viewed by anywhere from 300 to 3 trillion individuals in one week (by the Gregorian calendar). Canadiandy1 (talk) 02:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

One problem is that the article "the" modifies both "founder" and "prophet," so by default the sentence seems to say that Smith is THE prophet of the Latter Day Saint movement.--John Foxe (talk) 01:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Good point. My issue is to specify who considers Smith a prophet, not "the". tedder (talk) 01:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

If anyone was "THE" prophet of the Latter Day Saint movement, all parties would agree that it was Smith. All parties would also agree that there were more prophets of the Latter Day Saint movement following Smith (or alongside him), a point which is unfortunately hidden if we only say "the founder and prophet of...". While I don't oppose "the founder and a prophet of...", I do prefer to leave off the 'a'; it just doesn't flow as well. Since the article's focus is Smith, I don't think it hurts to call him "THE" prophet of the LDS movement. If the curious reader is interested in beliefs of the LDS movement, they can read the corresponding article for the full picture. That's my opinion, anyways. ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 04:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Isn't "the" prophet Thomas S. Monson? Or is he just "a" prophet?--John Foxe (talk) 10:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Currently Monson is the President of the Church, so yes he would be regarded as THE prophet. All members are able to prophesy so being qualified as "a" prophet isn't as special as you might think to Mormons. What about "...founder and first prophet of..."? Or "...founder and first President of..."? Can someone double-check with a Bishop or Apostle and determine if "Prophet" is the name of the office? Now that I glance over Thomas S. Monson's article I'm beginning to doubt myself. His lead looks like it might be a good template for us. First sentence is his office, President. Second sentence describes what that office means to the church. Padillah (talk) 12:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll let you folks talk this over, but it sure would be a boost to NPOV and the stability of the lead if we could call Smith "first President" instead of "first prophet."--John Foxe (talk) 15:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that the Latter Day Saint movement is not an organization. There has never been a President of the movement, only presidents of various Latter Day Saint churches beginning with the Church of Christ. COGDEN 20:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Certainly. Forgot about that.--John Foxe (talk) 20:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

There have been issues raised concerning the use of "founder and first prophet of the Latter Day Saint movement" since most Latter Day Saints believe in and claim prophets (for example, Old Testament prophets) that predate Smith. I personally find this wording acceptable since Smith was the first prophet to claimed solely by the LDS movement. I don't have a strong opinion for or against using "first". As for Foxe's comment, like COgden said, the movement isn't an organization. Furthermore I'd say that Monson is referred to as "THE" prophet of the LDS Church because he's the current living President of that organization. I still feel that "THE prophet of the Latter Day Saint movement" can easily be identified as JSJr and adherents of the LDS Church, as well as adherents of other Latter Day Saint churches, would probably agree with the statement. Human language, with its many implications and unspoken assumptions, can be so troublesome. ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 00:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Question: where do we stand on the lead sentence? Did we ever come to a conclusion? My question being "Was Joseph Smith Jr. the first President of the LDS church?" Seeing as how the dissensions and reformations happened after his death the Church should have been well established by then. This makes the sentence "...was founder and first President..." correct and IMO the best candidate for lead (using Monson's article as a basis). Padillah (talk) 14:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Note COGDEN's comment above, that "Latter Day Saint movement is not an organization. There has never been a President of the movement, only presidents of various Latter Day Saint churches beginning with the Church of Christ."--John Foxe (talk) 15:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

That simply begs the question "What church was he President of"? Then we say he was President of that church. "...founder of the Latter Day Saints movement and President of the ??? Church". That should stabilize the lead around the facts of his life rather than whether or not to qualify "Prophet". Padillah (talk) 16:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I know there's going to be trouble with the word "prophet" when the article gets nominated for featured status. If it were up to me, I would say only that Smith was the founder of the Latter Day Saint movement. That's something everyone should be able to agree on. But it's obviously not up to me.--John Foxe (talk) 18:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

'Materialist' Redundant

The article states that, "Smith was a materialist, teaching that all spirit was material but composed of matter so fine that it was invisible to all but the purest mortal eyes," which is like saying, Mulroney was an alcoholic, being a man who drank habitually to excess." It is redundant and could be simplified by simply stating, "Smith taught that all spirit was material but composed of matter so fine that it was invisible to all but the purest mortal eyes."

In fact, to some unfamiliar with the term they might assume 'Materialist[s]' were a religious group or some unfamiliar fringe collective body further confusing this statement.

99.199.139.154 (talk) 01:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

Sounds good. We could also probably pipe the materialism article into "material". COGDEN 01:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your fair support on this one, COgden. You'll have to post it though as I've been 'editorially neutered' by Tedder. In essence he compared me as equivalent in status to Duke53. For any interested I'm pasting his posting and my response. Sorry for any hard feelings.

Tedder wrote:

"This is actually a multifaceted problem. Certainly routerone's recent personal attack is a problem ([36]). Duke53 seems to only be around to cause trouble- but Canadiandy, who edits as IPs and a username, isn't much better- at least duke53 makes valid contributions to Wikipedia; Canadiandy only posts on a few talk pages and has made few or no actual contributions, meaning both of the users are in the WP:SPA camp as far as I can tell."

I replied:

"I don't know if I'm allowed to post here or if it's good form either. If I am in error I plead ignorance and not malice. First, I'm not sure about the problem with me editing as "IPs." I don't know if I'm the only one who finds this confusing. I am assuming you are referring to my need to create a user name and be logged in? I believe I have been doing that since learning of it with a much greater frequency of late, though I admit I had a time when I was doubly confused after being accused of double signing in (I believe the concern was I was both logged in and '4-tildeing').

To the accusation that I make few or no actual contributions, that is, I feel, completely unfair. In the beginning I was trying to 'learn the ropes' and let the senior members edit while I simply offered insight for improvement. I don't think there's more than 3% of my postings that do not make recommendations for improvement. That I am of the opinion that the article is slanted, and that my opinions are critical of that slant do not mean I have no recommendations for improvement. In fact, on the several suggestions I have made (rewording the term 'movement', capitalizing the word 'prophet' to reflect title, adding references to 'dynastic' nature of temple marriages, exploring validity of Brodie as a reliable source, and recently editing the term 'materialist' based on redundancy) most are usually met with a wall of text against what seem to be very fair proposals. Perhaps this is the context that has Routerone so frustrated.

And now I am accused of being worse than Duke53?

In my defense, I have picked up an awful lot of procedural knowledge in the short few months I've been here. I have apologized readily if I have been insensitive or out of line. I have been busy and offered original insight into systemic challenges and how they might be overcome in an effort to bring real fairness to the article. To the accusation I am an SPA, I am an incredibly new contributor. In that short time I have posted here extensively, but I have also branched into the "Mark Hoffman" article, "Beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints," and I even posted on the "Martin Luther" board against what I feel are unfair accusations of his Nazi influence. Tedder, you have the right to your opinion, but is this how new contributors are usually treated?

You will notice I actually spoke up in opposition to Routerone's statements concerning COgden, though I fully understand his frustration. I believe I have been fair and cautious. I have been focused on improving the article primarily, though I do admit posting occasional responses to offenses I have felt based on the criticisms hoisted against a man I revere as a great religious leader of my faith. Even this was done not in attack but on the assumption others might not understand the impact has on many orthodox 'Mormons.'

Your post here is, I feel, unwarranted, and unfair. But if this is going to continue to be my experience here I have better things to do. I understand hearing these kind of accusations on the discussion page. But when it comes from a senior member it is humiliating. Consider me gone. You win.

Sorry Routerone, looks like you're the last leaf on the tree and there's a stiff wind blowing.

Canadiandy1 (talk) 03:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

I'd like to let you know that I have no intention of giving up. You as the leaf were not "blown off" but rather you pulled yourself off by deciding to quit wikipedia, the wind did not defeat you. Hence I will cling on and not give up in my attempts to correct this page. For my faith, I cannot show weakness or cowardice, and nor did Joseph Smith who hung on to what he believed in until he cost him his life, and he can't say he didn't see it coming... Routerone (talk) 11:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Canadiandy, I fixed the redundancy, although after looking at it more carefully I worded it a bit differently than suggested above, which hopefully is even clearer. You should not feel that you cannot edit. In fact, you can prove Tedder wrong in suggesting yours is a "special purpose account" by establishing a body of constructive edits, including non-controversial improvements, of which there are plenty yet to be made in this article. Although I may or may not always agree with every edit, I, for one, would welcome your additional input.

Routerone, I welcome your constructive contributions as well, but I think everyone needs to take a step back and not view this so personally. The point when editors start to think of their role on Wikipedia as a religious or anti-religious quest is the point when progress in improving the article ceases. This article can never please the proselytizing instincts of every Mormon and anti-Mormon, but if we can all hold those instincts at bay, maybe we can improve the article to the point that, though not everybody agrees with every sentence, at least everyone agrees that every sentence is merited based on Wikipiedia policy and detached, dispassionate academic standards. COGDEN 19:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

COgden, thanks for the respect. Truth is, they don't pay me to do this job, and I owe no allegiance to Wikipedia. So as long as individuals like Tedder run roughshod on my contributions, I'll step aside and let the article go for a season.

Hold in there Brother Routerone, sorry I can't join you on the Trek. Watch for wolves.

199.60.41.15 (talk) 20:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

"The plates themselves were not directly consulted"

I would like to propose an "amendment" to the content of this page in regards to a cited statement in the article which makes a direct claim that "the plates themselves were not directly consulted".

On doing research, I have discovered that this "statement" is a gross misinterpretation of the source which is supporting it, and that the statement is infact synthesis, a self drawn conclusion drawn from information the source gives, and hence the statement is not in allignment with what the source is actually saying.

This is the source:

• "^ Van Wagoner & Walker (1982, p. 52); Howe (1834, p. 266)"

This is the footnote (please note it is not drawn directly from the source content):

• "plates were hidden in the woods while Smith translated"

Now this is the text from the sources themselves:

• "after Isaac Hale objected to having the plates in his home, Joseph "removed the chest from the house and hid it temporarily in the woods." Later, the chest containing the plates was placed "in a box under our bed." They were sometimes "on a table wrapped in a tablecloth."- Where does that say about not consulting the plates directly?

• "After this, I became dissatisfied, and informed him that if there was any thing in my house of that description, which I could not be allowed to see, he must take it away; if he did not, I was determined to see it. After that, the Plates were said to be hid in the woods. About this time, Martin Harris made his appearance upon the stage; and Smith began to interpret the characters or hieroglyphics which he said were engraven upon the plates, while Harris wrote down the interpretation. "

My issue is with this, is that looking at the information the source gives, it cannot be deduced that the plates were in the woods during these times" yet the person who placed this in the article (COGDen) seems to have drew an unverfied conclusion from this source adding his own judgement into it, that is synthesis. The source says "After that, the Plates were said to be hid in the woods". It does not say anything at all on the "plates were not always directly consulted during translation" but rather it seems to make a reference to one event where Smith wrote down characters for Harris, known as the Anthon Transcript and that's it. But ultimately COGDen has interpreted "After this, I became dissatisfied, and informed him that if there was any thing in my house of that description, which I could not be allowed to see, he must take it away; if he did not, I was determined to see it" to meaning that the plates were never in the building. However, outside of that one account no evidence suggests that, and no evidence at all other than adding a self made conclusion to that source says "the plates were not directly consulted"

So as the statement in the article is merely a conclusion drawn from an indirect statement in the source, I am requesting its removal on the basis that it is merely synthesis being presented as fact, which is unfair. This is not a place for speculation. Routerone (talk) 17:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Instead of removal, would a sentence that accurately reflects the text be acceptable? I am not sure which choice is best, but it is an option to consider. --^StormRider 17:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't going to consider it, as for one I cannot think of how this source can be really useful in relation to the paragraph in the article this fits into, which goes:

Many witnesses did observe Smith translating using the same or similar method that he had previously used to find buried treasure: he would gaze at a seer stone in the bottom of his hat, excluding all light so that he could reportedly see the translation reflecting off the stone.The plates themselves were not directly consulted. Smith usually translated in full view of witnesses, but sometimes concealed the process by raising a curtain or dictating from another room".

Hence my view is we could remove it and not disrupt the propose/style of the paragraph. It's unimportant really and all the sources are saying are that "he once hid the plates in the woods" and that doesn't really fit in or have any significance. Routerone (talk) 18:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

While there is no single answer on where the plates were kept during translation (Bushman says on the table under a cloth, Remini said in the woods, in a trunk, etc.), there is a consensus that Smith did not consult the plates while he translated with the seer stone. We can add some additional citations. For example, Bushman (2005, pp. 71-72) ("Joseph did not pretend to look at the 'reformed Egyptian' words, the language on the plates, according to the book's own description. The plates lay covered on the table, while Joseph's head was in the hat looking at the seerstone..."). We could also cite Brodie (1971, pp. 60-61). The Dialogue server is down now, but maybe Van Wagoner/Walker say something even more explicit in another part of their article. And this article doesn't make much use of primary sources, but we could cite Isaac Hale in Howe (I think it's down a couple of pages from the present citation) who said Smith translated while the plates were hidden in the woods. Besides, any source that says Smith covered his face with his hat necessarily implies that he wasn't looking at the plates. Thus, the sentence should not be controversial. COGDEN 19:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

That's hardly a "concensus" is it? And its still drawing your own conclusion from the sources which don't state word for word directly that "the plates were not directly consulted". None of them actually reach say that despite stuff which you consider close to it saying "plates on the table". Thus when trying to wrangle out of it, you have hit the direct definition of synthesis, you're using the information to draw your own conclusions and statements from it and that you aren't supposed to do that. Rather you should re-arrange the statement in allignment with what the sources actually say, and not your unofficial intepretation. Routerone (talk) 20:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Here are some quotes from WP:OR

"Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research". If I am not mistaken that it has whats been done here:

• Not one of the sources say the direct statement "the plates were not directly consulted"- Yes they gave a hint, but the policy guideline prohibits you from using indirect hints to make a conclusion.

• You have added material from multiple indirect sources together to reach your own conclusion

• That conclusion is not specifically stated or mentioned by any of the sources.

• even if that conclusion is correct, the policy pages states specifically it should not be in the article

Hence you have violated Wikipedia:Synthesis and its pretty obvious. To draw a wider perspective this has been done throughout the whole article by both you and John Foxe, and that is what's wrong with it. You claim to be a "Liberal Mormon" (which to be fair I hate the idea of) yet you are successfully ruining the reputation of the person you believe in with bad research and article work. Routerone (talk) 20:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I've added the quotation from Cowdery that COGDEN suggested.--John Foxe (talk) 20:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Routerone, there is no rule in Wikipedia that you must find a citation that repeats verbatim what you are saying in the article. You can also make obvious and noncontroversial inferences from the sources, and that is not considered synthesis. There is nothing wrong with going from "Joseph did not pretend to look at the 'reformed Egyptian' words, the language on the plates, according to the book's own description. The plates lay covered on the table, while Joseph's head was in the hat looking at the seerstone..." to "the plates were not consulted". Bushman did specifically state the conclusion found in the Wikipedia article, as did several of the other sources. COGDEN 20:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Stop trying to wind your way out of this. Firstly; The source cited to Remini has been misrepresented to make it appear that he supports the idea that the plates were never consulted. Remini states that the translation began after describing the locations that the plates had been hidden. According to Remini, after Isaac Hale objected to having the plates in his home, Joseph "removed the chest from the house and hid it temporarily in the woods." Later, the chest containing the plates was placed "in a box under our bed." They were sometimes "on a table wrapped in a tablecloth." Remini then notes after describing these things: "Finally, in December 1827, Joseph began the task of translating the plates."

Secondly; The cited source Howe has been misrepresented. The source notes only that the plates were "said to be hid in the woods" after Isaac Hale objected to them being in his house. Hale then describes the translation process. However, since Hale was not allowed to see the plates, it cannot be deduced that the plates were "in the woods" during these times. From the cited source Howe, p. 264.

The sources supporting the citation do not draw that conclusion or even specifically state he "did not consult the plates". If want to keep it in the article, then lets see you dig up Bushman's "conclusion" Because to me you have quite clearly got this wrong. Routerone (talk) 20:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Isaac Hale said, "The manner in which he pretended to read and interpret, was the same as when he looked for the money-diggers, with the stone in his hat, and his hat over his face, while the Book of Plates were at the same time hid in the woods!" (Howe, p. 265). We don't cite this for the fact that the plates were in the woods, only for the fact that the plates were not consulted (or even present) while Smith translated. Plus, by any rational standard, Bushman's statement that "Joseph did not pretend to look at the 'reformed Egyptian' words, the language on the plates" is equivalent to "Smith did not consult the plates". If you would rather that the article said "Joseph did not pretend to look at the words on the plates while translating", then I'd argue this language based on Bushman is less neutral than what we already have. COGDEN 20:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think the distinction COgden is making is exactly the distinction Routerone is talking about. If a writer is writing a book he may consult a thesaurus from time to time. He's not staring at it for the entire duration of the book writing but he looks up what he needs when he needs to. To say the plates were never consulted implies they were never even looked the entire time the translation was going on. That may not be a fair assessment. There is room to argue that Smith went to the woods (et al) and looked at the plates from time to time as needed. Then he returned to the house and used the seer stones to translate. Padillah (talk) 21:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

There's no evidence to support that interpretation. For my part, I'd like to argue that Smith had chapters from KJV of Isaiah in the bottom of his hat. It's certainly possible, but there's no evidence.--John Foxe (talk) 21:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Just like there is little evidence to the interpretation that COGden is drawing from it Foxe, plus Padillah was making an "observation" not an "interpretation. COGden using two statements to draw the unverified conclusion that he never consulted them for the whole translation, which is ultimately synthesis. Of course we are not denying that he did hide them in the woods a couple of times or left them on the table, but they do not account on behalf of the events as a whole. Those sources can be used in a better way obviously, but not for drawing conclusions from. Routerone (talk) 21:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Cowdery said Smith translated from plates with the plates not "in sight at all." There's no synthesis there. It's a flat statement. Smith translated without looking at the plates. Period.--John Foxe (talk) 22:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Stop being a hypocrite. You are using "Cowdrey Quotes" to your advantage. Yet I used quotes from Martin Harris to support a point and you had away with them in a second calling them "bluff". Well guess what? I'm going to dismiss your quotes as "bluff" too, because they are on the same bracket of realibility. See? Like I said you are allowed to use witness accounts against Smith but not for him. Its sad how you think that it is one rule for you and another for everyone else. I added that harris stuff in you removed it on "bluff + no concensus" yet you're adding stuff in yourself which is in the same bracket with no concensus! How on earth is that justified? Routerone (talk) 22:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I just tweaked the language and kept the two best secondary sources, Van Wagoner and Bushman. Van Wagoner said, "The plates could not have been used directly in the translation process." I'd rather use these than rely on the Cowdery statement, which some scholars (Bushman and Vogel, but not Brodie, Hill, or Van Wagoner/Walker, and a few others) think is a forgery. COGDEN 22:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I just reverted COgden's edit; consensus needs to be achieved once consensus has been raised. COgden, I looked at Bushman "Rough Stone...", page 71 and I am a bit confused. In the second to the last paragraph it clearly states the plates were on the table, the Urim and Thummim was used, and a blanket was used with Martin Harris. This conflicts badly with the generalization made in your recent edit. I strongly recommend that generalizations not be used, no blanket comments, and allowances should be made for conflicting reliables resources. --^StormRider 22:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article text refers to the stone-in-the-hat process attested by witnesses, in contrast with the looking-through-spectacles method that may have been used with Harris to translate a part (but not all of) the lost Book of Lehi, but which nobody was a witness. Bushman chooses to accept Emma's account, in which the plates are kept on the table under a cloth during translation. But the important point is that they were under a cloth and therefore out of view. Bushman, Van Wagoner/Walker, and a few primary sources say that the plates were not consulted during translation with the stone in the hat. There is no source that alleges that Smith consulted the plates while he had the hat over his face (i.e., through a hole in the hat, or by placing the plates in the hat, by Braille, or some other theory), or that he alternated between looking at the stone in the hat and looking at the plates. COGDEN 23:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Routerone, can you please explain why you reverted my addition of Bushman and Van Wagoner/Walker citations? These are just citations. If you really like the old citations, we can add both these new citations and the old ones, but I think the old ones are not as good and not as relevant. Also, I have a problem with your proposed language "Accounts say that there were several occasions where Smith did not always consult the Plates." First, I don't really understand this, and second, this seems to imply that Smith most of the time consulted the plates while looking at the stone in his hat. No sources for the idea that he even once so consulted the plates, let alone that such consultation was his usual practice. COGDEN 23:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Routerone, there is no record of Smith translating while looking at the plates. There is plenty of evidence of him translating while not looking at the plates. That's just the way it is.--John Foxe (talk) 01:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I can support the edit, COgden, but not with absolute language that attempts to portray a single method of translation. John, I don't think you are accurate and in saying there is no record of translating while looking at the plates. Bushman seems to imply that at the beginning he did look at the plates. Can you see my objective in editing it with a broader context of translation process? --^StormRider 02:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I support the absolute language because there's no evidence that Smith ever looked at the plates while translating. Even if we agree that the plates were sitting on the table beside him when he translated with Harris, there's no evidence that he looked at plates. We can infer that he did; but then I can also infer that he translated with a KJV copy of Isaiah in front of him.--John Foxe (talk) 13:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

" ... there's no evidence that he looked at plates" More importantly, there is no evidence proving that any such 'plates' ever existed. Duke53 | ^Talk 15:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Storm Rider, Bushman is referring to two different time periods. During the time period at issue here, corresponding to entire existing Book of Mormon when Smith was using his seer stone, he says that Smith did not pretend to read the words on the plates. In the earlier period, perhaps the very beginning of the Book of Lehi, he opines that Smith performed the translation behind a curtain. There's no reason to be equivocal about his stone-in-hat method, which is well documented, just because he may have used some different method very early on behind a curtain. Moreover, Bushman does not say, even during the behind-the-curtain method, that Smith actually referred to the plates. We mention both of these methods in the present article. Of these two, the only method worthy of equivocation is the behind-the-curtain method, because nobody saw what Smith did behind the curtain. COGDEN 17:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

New mormon history

Routerone, please hold the line. I'm getting tired of the New Mormon History. It looks a lot like the old Anti-Mormon literature.

199.60.41.15 (talk) 02:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

New Mormon History is simply standard mainstream history, as opposed to old-style polemical history by anti-Mormons and angry Mormons who have little interest in mainstream scholarship. Bushman, Van Wagoner, and Walker are good examples of New Mormon Historians. Storm Rider, there are two stories of how Smith translated, and both of them are mentioned in the article. This whole discussion concerns just the stone-in-a-hat method, which was the method he used for all the existing Book of Mormon, and at least most of the lost 116 pages. We can use non-ambivalent language here, because all the secondary sources use non-ambivalent language. COGDEN 02:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

New Mormon History?

Translation: intellectuals defining other people's religion's history for them cause they're too dumb to do it themselves.

Sounds condescending, arrogant, and mean-spirited all at the same time.

Reminds me of the Europeans who came to America and worked really hard to "civilize" the native 'barbarians.' But if I'm not eager to embrace NMH I guess I must be one of those "angry Mormons who have little interest in mainstream scholarship."

99.199.139.154 (talk) 06:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

How does that help contribute to the article, Canadindy? Do you have any feedback on the topic at hand? tedder (talk) 06:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

•"How does that help contribute to the article, Canadindy ?" Hmm .... any thought to deleting the above dialogue ? Duke53 | ^Talk 15:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

p.s. at least it would make it appear that you are consistent and fair in your admin duties concerning this article. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 15:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The IP was both sarcastic and incorrect. So how useful is it? Seems to me Tedder's comment is on the money. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

"The IP was both sarcastic and incorrect" Yes, yes he was; my point is that this admin is pretty quick on the trigger to delete other editor's comments, why did he engage in a conversation here instead of simply deleting the comments ? Duke53 | ^Talk 19:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not a matter of too "dumb" to do it themselves, it's too biased, which can apply to any "special interest group" - they are going to want to only present information they consider to be positive (or negative, if they don't like the group). The analogy with Europeans converting American Indians is false. The true analogy would be if Europeans studied and documented Indians' religious beliefs in an objective way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Bugs, a polite request. The term 'Indian' may be appropriate in the US, but here in Canada it is not culturally sensitive. We use the term First Nations. And we do have a problem here with the European chronicles of our First Nations. Objective or not, our First Nations get pretty steamed when academics try to pigeon hole them and tell them their own history. It makes me think of the visiting sociology students and how silly they look trying to join in a Potlatch (ceremonial) dance. Both analogies stand.

Thanks,

99.199.139.154 (talk) 22:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

I don't think I was acting sarcastically as much as I was responding with offense at this arrogant "New" Mormon History. It's as out of touch as a lecture by George W. Bush on the modern African American youth dialects. As if I'm supposed to cheer for a bunch of University skeptics who will define my religious or cultural history?

What you keep failing to realize is that there is an incredibly insensitive approach to defining LDS history here. From my academic experience this outsider approach to history is Old School. Consider First Nations studies. Historians who study their culture and beliefs from the outside are quickly discredited and actually restricted from access to songs and legends. The new approach is to work from inside the cultural group to provide sensitivity, context, and accuracy to social research. This is far more effective in the long run. If it had been used in the first place we wouldn't have needed to spend 5 pages of debate figuring out that 'Prophet' should be capitalized. And the edit wars here would be far less polarized.

How does this contribute to the article? It gets at the very root of why it is so biased, polarized, offensive, and unreliable. Now I'm not so naive as to expect the current editors to get that, but that shouldn't keep me from a hope that somehow the lightbulb will click with maybe even one and begin to turn this thing around. It's like a train heading the wrong way. Just speeding up won't help.

Please ask yourself if the presentation of your own religions, cultures, or histories wouldn't benefit from a more socially respectful historical approach?

New Mormon History, maybe that's the real enemy here.

99.199.139.154 (talk) 02:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

I think you're chasing after a red herring here. Most New Mormon Historians are, in fact, Mormons. Bushman, for example, is a stalwart Mormon. He's not studying Mormon history from the "outside". Neither are Van Wagoner or Walker, also solid Mormons. Walker, in fact, was a BYU professor. Leonard Arrington, another classic New Mormon Historian, was the official LDS Church Historian. These guys are not swooping in from the outside and defining your religion for you. They are just mainstream historians doing what historians do. COGDEN 07:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, Oakes is quite the scholar. So are Marlin K. Jensen, Turley, Holland, Jessee, Welch, Backman, Walker, Turner... . None of their research has been challenged (except by those who feel any Mormons not finding major fault with Joseph Smith must be biased Mormons) and I don't see many references from them. What we have here now, unless we can rethink our approach, is a natural selection committee. It seems the world is scoured for Mormon scholars whose research (in or out of context) is most inflammatory or skeptical. It is not THAT Mormons are referenced, it's WHICH Mormons seem to be embraced. Brodie (a bitter ex-Mormon), Bachman (who is extremely unhappy with how his research has been manipulated to defame Joseph Smith), we've had this discussion before, so please don't stand them up as "mainstream" Mormons. I don't question their loyalty and faith in the Church, but they sure don't reflect the common tenor of research I have seen from BYU, CHD, or even FAIR LDS.

And please, the term Red Herring is of Canadian origin. I know what it means. It implies I am trying to avoid the issue (what issue, this is it's own issue) or divert from it. Saying such is not only contrary to good will, but it is also erroneous. I understand your likeliness to take offense at my opposition to New Mormon History. I just don't think we're going to agree that there's anything gained from championing criticism (regardless of the intent) of any religion, culture, or faith. So, call it what you will, New Mormon History is Old School.

99.199.139.154 (talk) 16:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

I believe, according to the Wikipedia article on New Mormon history, that all of the scholars you mentioned would be considered "New Mormon historians". I also believe that COgden was not accusing you of creating a red herring, but rather, chasing a red herring, or in other words, thinking that we disagree about something that we don't disagree about. You are correct, we should incorporate a variety of references into the article. Can we let go of the term "New Mormon history" now, and discuss real, specific changes to the article? ...comments? ~BFizz 17:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll close the discussion with the reflections of Armund Mauss. He identified New Mormon History as historical scholarship that, "became more detached and academic." You call it 'New.' It started 50 years ago. You call it Mormon, the 'Mormon' Church is not its author. You call it History, well, there we will have to disagree, I call it more often a manipulation of evidences. So in short, New Mormon History is neither new, nor Mormon, nor history. If you're looking for a new term I propose 'Scholarly Cynical Urbanite Muckraking.' Sorry about the acronym.

Unless someone wants to hit me with another 'Red Herring,' I'm done on this one. 99.199.139.154 (talk) 21:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

I suspect that most Wikipedia editors would think that scholarship that is "more detached and academic" is a good thing. There other forums where it is appropriate to engage in a more polemical and overtly evangelical type of scholarship, but one of the pillars of Wikipedia is neutrality, and therefore we have no choice but to treat Joseph Smith in a detached and academic way. COGDEN 22:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Canadiandy, I agree that we should probably leave off on the NMH topic. A real question is what should be in the article. There is an absolute plethora of information that discusses Smith in a very positive light that is missing from the article. What is even better is that all of the authors listed above can be used to illustrate those points. Each editor can focus on their preferred position and include those quotes or summarize the point desired. If you want to contribute it is advisable you go to the sources you possess and begin adding as appropriate. POV can be demonstrated by tone and focus of which facts are included and those ignored. Balance is the objective for every article. If you think this article is out of balance, you are invited to begin working to "right the ship". --^StormRider 23:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that viewing the article as some sort of scale tipping between "positive" and "negative" information is exactly the wrong way to view this or any Wikipedia article. Whether a given bit of information is "positive" or "negative" is completely subjective. You may think one fact is "negative" while I think it's "positive", or vice versa. And just because we include one fact that someone views as "negative" doesn't mean that we need to balance it out, tit-for-tat, with what some other editor considers to be a "positive" fact. The goal we are shooting at is to populate the article with information about Smith's life, very roughly in proportion to the prominence given in the whole body of mainstream literature, keeping in mind the need to craft a Wikipedia article that is comprehensive, is good prose, and that engages the reader. COGDEN 04:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

What I am promoting is balance in the article. In addition, there is the concept of fringe that should be considered. When editors pick and choose Bushman's writing and pick out a phrase that appears negative while ignoring everything else that appears positive, I get a little anxious about objectivity. As I have said in the past, if editors are willing to do the work, no one should really fault them. What is needed is for others to do the work and if they are not there is not room to complain. It is not tit-for-tat that is desired. Regardless, I am concered about balance and fringe.--^StormRider 15:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Which is why I think that StormRider is hitting the nail right on the head when he says that the "tone and focus" of the prose is what determines POV or neutrality. ...comments? ~BFizz 06:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

A real question is what should be in the article. There is an absolute plethora of information that discusses Smith in a very positive light that is missing from the article'- I can just point I've tried adding some more positive content into the article before. It was removed rudely by John Foxe. (I am not allowed to remove his cited material, but he can remove mine!). The problem with this page is that Foxe and COGDen basically defend it from any kind of significant change, which in my opinion is problematic and defeating the concept of wikipedia. Routerone (talk) 07:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Hear, hear, Routerone. 99.199.139.154 (talk) 16:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

"The problem with this page is that Foxe and COGDen basically defend it from any kind of significant change" Au contraire ... the real problem here is that some editors want to change this article into something that the general authorities would approve for an official mormon wiki. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 21:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I would like you to please shut your mouth with your cruddy comments and crawl back into the woodwork. Ultimately just because I can see that there is something wrong with the articles does not mean I want to build a "mormon wiki". You are blinded by prejudice against us and express that through gross uncivility and childish behaviour. ButI'd like to make the point that is no denial that there are problems to this article. Identifying that sources have been took of context, had personal conclusions added to them and generally presented in a twisted prose is hardly building a "mormon wiki" is it? You have never made a single effort to contribute to this page, your only function is to purely annoy LDS editors reverting their edits and fobbying them off for bogus reasons. That I do not find constructive, helpful, or even significant to even feel the need to bother to treat you with a tint of dignity as an editor. There are problems with this page, and the fact can you can't even make a single structural, contextual, or citational addition/change to it sums up the editoral dictatorship surrounding this page and others in the same topic. I can edit and change other articles freely and I never go through this nonsense. This is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit sure Foxe and COGDen can edit this page freely, however when they begin restricting the liberty of others to edit it gets out of hand. Like it or not Duke53, this article reflects only the views of a fundamentalist protestant professor and a Mormon so liberal you can barely call him "Mormon". When jumping on the attack, you think that it automatically isn't justified that Mormons should have any kind of say, but why not? They have more of a point than you possibly do with your downtrodden agenda.Routerone (talk) 21:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Routerone, you've once again violated WP:NPA, which (to repeat for general edification) includes comments directed against other editors' religions, using "someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views," and "speculating on the real life identity of another editor."--John Foxe (talk) 21:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Ahem please do not jump on that bandwagon against me Foxe. Duke53 himself's only purpose here on wikipedia is to supress mormons by the nature of his edits and he is openly making fun of them on his userpage, so why should he be allowed to get away with it and me sanctioned for such? If anyone is "someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views," its almost certainly Duke53 in every essense possible. Like I said, his userpage, all of his comments, the way he edits, the way he doesn't contribute and reverts LDS edits for the sake of it. He is dismissing us and when we are pointing out faults in the article he dimisses our claims by what he believe in (as do you). Because you also have a prejudice against LDS too and I class your editing motvitations and style as an attack on my faith. So don't take the moral high ground, I should not have to be polite to editors who abuse my faith and what I stand for. Routerone (talk) 21:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

John Foxe, I feel to generally concur with Routerone here. I understand the "Good Will" notion here at Wikipedia. Problem is, Duke53 long ago gave up any right to expect to be treated civilly. 'Childish' is quite accurate a term in depicting his statements and attacks. Neither Routerone nor myself attack other religions or malign them. The stereotyping and religious attacks need to stop. Instead of attacking Routerone, it would be far more helpful if you would 'talk to' Duke53 about his trash attacks.

Now, Routerone, I know how the religious attacks can get frustrating. And while I think it is fair to identify Foxe as a fundamentalist protestant professor (I am assuming this is common knowledge) it is a little unfair to paint COgden as [barely] Mormon. I completely disagree with almost everything he posts, but I will give him the benefit of the doubt that that is merely a result of a misguided intellect and not religious apostasy. Let's return to attacking the errors and not the editors. Smiles.

As to your final point, please explain how it is that John Foxe and COgden have more editorial authority here. I'm a bit new so could you explain what are the levels of editorship? Are editors elected, appointed? Or is it merely a matter of rule by mouse (i.e. the individual who reverts more frequently wins). Are there uber-editors who reign from on high and have given Foxe and COGden the noble nod? It seems to me that there's these uber-editors (Tedder et al) who make final decisions (which usually seem to come down in John Foxe's favor). It seems like a democracy, but without election I see it more as the illusion of Democracy. Your thoughts? 99.199.139.154 (talk) 23:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

Routerone and Canadiandy, It does no good to argue that you have the right to violate Wikipedia rules just because someone else does. This principle is something we teach preschoolers.

As for myself, I've never identified myself as a "fundamentalist protestant professor" and will neither confirm nor deny that identification here; it's an idea ultimately based on an earlier assumption made by FAIR that if I edit articles about Christian fundamentalism (and I've edited a lot), I must be one myself.--John Foxe (talk) 13:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

"...Duke53 long ago gave up any right to expect to be treated civilly" Where and when, exactly, did I give up this right ? It is not up to the likes of you to determine who has, or doesn't have, 'rights' at Wikipedia. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 14:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

p.s. I think that in the interest of full disclosure that BFizz should have identified himself as mormon (or at least pro-mormon) when he started that administrative action ... it seems that it may be another case of TBMs 'swarming' a non-mormon once again ... but what do 'you' think ? Duke53 | ^Talk 14:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

What do I think? I think that being Mormon (or any other religion for that matter) should be completely beside the point. Either a fact is appropriate for inclusion or it is not - period. Just because a fact could be interpreted as supporting or attacking a certain point of view does not make the fact any more or less based in reality. I don't care what other editors are trying to do, let's make the article better. I'd rather be right than win an argument. Padillah (talk) 12:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

People, leave off on commenting about Duke53. His editing style speaks for itself. It is best to never engage him because it only encourages him. Over the years I have found the best way to to treat this situation is to ignore him completely. Of course, should he ever edit in such a way to demonstrate that he is serious, then an appropriate, respectful response is due. Until then, just ignore his comments. There is a saying on Wikipedia about never feeding a troll; it may be an apt warning to everyone here. --^StormRider 15:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

•Well, thank Elohim! The rest of the posse has finally arrived, complete with his arsenal of personal attacks ! ("People, leave off on commenting about Duke53. His editing style speaks for itself. It is best to never engage him because it only encourages him. Over the years I have found the best way to to treat this situation is to ignore him completely. Of course, should he ever edit in such a way to demonstrate that he is serious, then an appropriate, respectful response is due. Until then, just ignore his comments. There is a saying on Wikipedia about never feeding a troll; it may be an apt warning to everyone here. --^{user:Storm Rider|Storm]]}[[User talk:Storm Rider#top|Rider") Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 18:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Singling out a specific user is bordering on NPA. Singling out a specific user and then advocating that they be ignored completely is almost surely NPA. Whatever good intentions were espoused your entry above is not helpful. If you want to mention an edit, fine. If you want to mention an editor, you're better off keeping it to yourself. Can someone please offer an opinion about one of the topics needing consensus? Padillah (talk) 17:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

•Since this is a clear case of NPA, will you put a warning about that on his talk page ? My warnings are simply ignored. :) Thank You in advance. Duke53 | ^Talk 18:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

With back-handed comments like "It does no good to argue that you have the right to violate Wikipedia rules just because someone else does. This principle is something we teach preschoolers." I would tend to the beam in thine own eye. Yes, StormRider went around the bend but you are on the same road so consider this a "Slippery when wet" sign - let's keep it about the facts. Padillah (talk) 12:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Padillah, my statement was in keeping with the principles set forth in [[1]]. I addressed the content of his edits and encouraged engagement only when comments have merit rather than the more mundane comments common to his notorious reputation on Wikipedia. IF an editor is engaging in trollish behavior the advice is to ignore him or her. To ignore the behavior is not a personal attack nor is encouraging others to observe this valuable counsel. The mere fact that the topic is Duke rather than the article is evidence enough that his comments are not about improving the article. Regardless, I have provided the only advice I think is wise and will not comment on this topic futher. --^StormRider 16:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Excessive debate

I've posted to WP:CCN#Conflict at article Joseph Smith, Jr., specifically mentioning Routerone and Duke53. Please be aware of the noticeboard post. ...comments? ~BFizz 01:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey all, (don't worry I'm just back to give you an update on events relating to this section). In the end (and outside the scope of the posted conflict) Tedder turned the blame on me for the excessive debate. In his words, "I've long considered you [Canadiandy] a troll." Makes me wonder why he didn't mention it earlier, but I know when I'm beat. Sorry for trolling, not sure what that really means now, but, whatever. I have a clean conscience that I did what I could to stand up for fairness, and now my family gets more of my time. I win, you win, and the article is what it is.

Sorry for any hard feelings Duke, John, and COgden. Especially, John. We don't agree, but I got a little defensive back there. Stay strong Routerone and BFizz.

Gonna go find me an old bridge to hang out under.

And please, I'd like to drop this so no parting shots.

Canadiandy1 (talk) 06:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

First Vision left to the last half of the article?

Can anyone explain why Joseph Smith's 'First Vision' is conspicuously absent in the opening paragraphs? Yeah, I know people will pull out his so-called changing story. But as the Joseph Smith History (Smith's final account, written by his own hand) clearly states,

"When the [pillar of] light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!"

If we are attempting a summation it should at least attempt chronology. And if it is a matter of which version is more reliable, academically the more recent would be favored. First came the First Vision, then the receipt of the plates, ... . In fact, this event is arguably the most important event in Smith's life.

99.199.139.154 (talk) 00:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

I vaguely recall attempting to fit the First Vision into the first or fourth paragraph of the intro, but it has long since been edited out. I support a brief mention of it in the intro (at minimum a piped wikilink), and also some mention of it in the Early Years section. You might want to dig around the talk page archives if you plan on seriously arguing the change. ...comments? ~BFizz 00:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I was fine with how it was mentioned in the fourth paragraph. The First Vision is far more significant as an issue of doctrine and belief, than as a matter of history, although probably the preponderance of historians would say that something happened in the early 1820s that caused Smith to feel he had a remission of sins. They also would say that this event had little significance to early Mormonism, at least until 1842. Though almost overlooked as a matter of early history, it has grown, since about the 1890s, to be the single most important element of Mormonism, eclipsing even the Book of Mormon. But this all occurred after Smith's death, and is therefore more pertinent to doctrinal Mormonism articles, rather than this one. COGDEN 01:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

So, how could we re-work it into the fourth paragraph of the intro? ...comments? ~BFizz 00:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Founded a Church or a movement?

I realize that there are talk page archives but I think this needs to be revisited. Could someone summarize the arguments for "founding a movement" vs. "founding a movement"? I have a specific problem with crediting Smith with founding the movement when he founded(and incorporated) a specific church. After his death several disagreements about who should be the next president caused different branches to spring up but that is not the result of any effort on Smiths part (that I am aware of). Padillah (talk) 14:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

This is a can of worms that no one has really dared touch. Smith certainly founded a church. If he intended to found "a movement", then he probably meant for it to be contained in one denomination. To be technically correct, we could move the statement that he founded the Church of Christ up to the lede, and then later in the lede summarize the name change and splitting denominations. I, for one, don't object to the current lede, but would not object to a careful rewording of it either. ...comments? ~BFizz 17:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The movement did not occur until the succession crisis after his death which saw the original church split into several sects. There is enough evidence to safely say Smith only ever founded the "Church of Christ" in his life time and only intended to do so. Routerone (talk) 17:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I would agree, Smith founded a very specific religion. He headed that religion and incorporated that religion. His history could be used as de facto argument that he only ever meant for there to be one religion (that's why he investigated and prayed in the first place). With this in mind I support the change Jimmyjatos28 made earlier today - Smith Founded the Church of Christ. Padillah (talk) 17:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with B Fizz that this could be problematic. I think the idea of moving up the church-founding into the lede makes the most sense. As for movement, we have used this as a neutral position for several years - in this article and most others dealing with the shared history of all the denominations. Best, A Sniper (talk) 18:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Why would it be problematic? Joseph Smith Jr. founded one church. What happened to it after that is not a question to be answered in his biographical article. This is about the life of Joseph Smith Jr., not what happened to the church after his death. What happened to the church after he died is worthy of passing note and a section with a "Main article" header. If you look at the Walter A. Brown article it says he "...helped to found the Basketball Association of America in 1946." It doesn't say he helped to found the NBA (which is what the BBA turned into) because he didn't. This article should be no different, Smith founded the Church of Christ. He didn't suggest that people worship Christ in a generally pleasing way. He was very specific about the church he founded. What happened to the church after he died has nothing to do with the fact that Smith founded the Church of Christ. Padillah (talk) 18:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

However, biases & POV of editors sometimes filter perceptions of what JSJr. did or didn't do, and this is what led to the use of movement. Best, A Sniper (talk) 20:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

So we've made the article POV to head off a possible POV? That's odd. Well, I'd like to suggest that the article address the accomplishments of Joseph Smith Jr. during his lifetime. As such the lead should be changed to reflect his founding of the Church of Christ. Padillah (talk) 20:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

It has already been suggested that the info about founding a church be placed in the lede - but please don't start dismantling movement. Best, A Sniper (talk) 20:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

While Smith certainly founded a specific church, that doesn't mean he didn't also found a movement. The question is, which is more important, one particular church, or an entire movement and philosophy? I think the latter. In addition, it's easy to forget that originally, Smith didn't really think of the Church of Christ as a denomination or church like other denominations or churches. He named it the "Church of Christ" precisely because it was something different from a mere denomination. Circa 1829, Smith was teaching that there were only two "churches", the church of Christ and the church of the devil, and that the church of Christ simply included all those who had taken upon them the name of Jesus and were baptized. Acquiring membership within a particular denomination or legally organized body was not even a consideration within the Book of Mormon. It was only in early 1830 when Smith first considered the idea of incorporating the church as a legal entity, almost as an afterthought. Prior to that and even for a while afterwards, the church was more than anything a small movement of like-minded people who believed they had been called and baptized as part of a "marvelous work" to institute Zion and restore the Lamanites to Christianity. COGDEN 22:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you are going too far. The first mention of baptism was in D&C 13:1, a revelation received in May 1929. This verse is unique in that it outlines the importance of the priesthood, which differentiates from all other churches that baptize. The early church always required new members to become baptized. These facts seem to contradict the concept that Joseph was creating on a group of like-minded individuals. It was most definitely in his mind that he was founding a church, imbued with gifts of prophecy and authority from God. It was never in his mind that he was founding a movement; it was much more specific than that, it was the church of Jesus Christ in all its form and structure of the ancient church during the time of Christ. --^StormRider 23:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Sniper: mention about founding a church is in the lede: last sentence of first paragraph. The discussion, then, is whether it is POV to say that JSJr "founded a movement". As I've stated before, I have no strong opinions. While he didn't intend to found a "movement", the "Latter Day Saint movement" is a term which encompasses all denominations that originated with Smith, so its safe to say he founded it. ...comments? ~BFizz 23:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry - I misread. I for one do not think it is wrong to characterize, as an encyclopedia, that what Joseph Smith, Jr. did was to found a movement...especially within the context of how folks saw themselves during those years, and differing interpretations of the various denominations today. That is why we've continued using this term. Best, A Sniper (talk) 02:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Storm Rider, I'm just saying that before April 1830, when Smith organized the Church of Christ institution, there was something else, also called the "church of Christ" to which people were being baptized. Baptism was a part of the movement since May 1829, but it was not until April 1830 that we have the first evidence that Smith understood (as a result of D&C 22) that the church was part of a "new and everlasting covenant" so that baptisms done under the "old covenant" (i.e., traditional Christianity), where ineffective. The idea of priesthood has also been a part of the movement since at least May 1829, but the Book of Mormon's view of priesthood did not depend upon the existence of a denomination. Though there was some degree of organization in the priesthood, the Book of Mormon "church" was described as simply the gathering of people who had taken upon themselves the name of Jesus. I guess my point is that the Latter Day Saint movement was founded well before the organization of the Church of Christ in 1830. COGDEN 00:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure we are disagreeing in a major way. Joseph recognized that he was called to serve as an instrument of God to some great work. The actual church, as you have said, was not founded until 1830. That was the culmination of his work, the apex for which he was directed. That entity continued to grow in doctrine and teachings. The term movement was not used until scholars began identifying all of the groups that broke off from Smith's restored church. We do not and should not open the topic for which of those churches is the actual continuation; that is irrelevant to this medium. However, in no way did Joseph think of what he was doing is founding a movement.

I have never thought of this before, but as I study on it I find no scholarly support that Smith himself founded the movement. The movement began after his death and is directly correlated to the crises in leadership that developed. It seems more factual to say that Smith founded a church and from this entity a movement was formed after his death.

The concept of a Church of Christ in the Book of Mormon is quite apparent and is a common theme throughout the books of 1 & 2 Nephi, Mosiah, Alma, Helaman, 3 & 4 Nephi, and Moroni. I would agree that there are many scholars that think there was no church founded by Christ; however, I would also say that attempting to include that concept here goes too far afield. Does this make sense to you? --^StormRider 00:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying that Jesus didn't found a church. I've also heard early Christianity referred to as the "Jesus Movement". Both the "church", and the "movement" were organized mainly after Jesus' death, yet it is not incorrect to say that Jesus founded both of them. I think the same goes with Joseph Smith. Even if you ignore the movement before the organization of the Church of Christ, it is not incorrect to say that Smith founded the Latter Day Saint movement. That Smith never used the word "movement" does not mean the word is not an accurate description.

I also would question the idea that the church was the one central idea of early Mormonism out of which the Latter Day Saint movement later developed. You could just as legitimately say the same thing about the priesthood. In fact, I think that the Community of Christ and Mormon fundamentalists would put far more emphasis on the priesthood than they would the church. In addition to the church and the priesthood, Smith also restored Zion and the Kingdom of God, innovations that I think are devalued by a church-centric view. COGDEN 01:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Again, I am not disagreeing with you, but support your statements, particularly the last few sentences. This is more an issue of semantics. This is not a situation that I would stand in the way or reject completely. It is more an intellectual discussion and I don't see any great harm in one over the other. I tend to think it more correct to say Smith founded a church and that church became a movement due to the number of splinter groups that grew out of it. However, saying Smith himself is the actual founder of the movement, IMHO, is not as precise. At worst it is clumsy in that it leaps to a conclusion in which Smith had no active hand in its creation. Again, I would prefer it one way, but the other way (calling him the founder of both the church and the movement) is not offensive to me personally; it is just imprecise. --^StormRider 02:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with StormRider, it's imprecise. Joseph Smith initiated a religion. It seems quite clear to me, from the stories and discussion regarding his first prayer, that he was searching for a singular means of worshiping Heavenly Father. His whole point, in the beginning , was to cut through the layers of different churches that had already been established and find the "one true church". That I know of, he was not prying for the One True Movement. Joseph Smith Jr. founded the one true church. He did not set out to establish several splinter religions that follow some of the same precepts. I guess I'm thinking more about his active role, he had an active role in establishing the Church of Christ. He did not have an active role in splintering that church into several separate entities. Padillah (talk) 12:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Cogden. It is precisely because editors look at Smith from differing perspectives that we have used the term movement. When I was a teenager, I ate dinner at former RLDS Church historian Richard Howard's house and it dawned on me that, although he was a professional historian, he hadn't necessarily reached the same conclusions about JSJr, the man, as others around the table had through their various faith experiences. Same at meetings of the John Whitmer Historical Association or the Mormon Historical Association. You know as well as I do that there are thousands of folks out there who sincerely believe JSJr. wore temple garments since Kirtland Temple in the same way there are those who sincerely believe he was a staunch anti-polygamy crusader betrayed by the bigamist Brigham Young. Some believers build huge monuments of JSJr., while others see him as a man with lots of human faults, who smoked cigars and drank at Mosers Bar. My point is that you as an editor might think, because of the edition of scriptures you refer to, that you yourself know exactly what or what not about JSJr. and what he was attempting to accomplish. I would submit that an LDS person and a CofC person differ strongly on what JSJr. saw as his purpose, and it is because of this that I would hope to see movement in the lede in the same way the founding of the church is there. Best, A Sniper (talk) 14:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Weird, I see the same argument but my conclusion is markedly different. I think it's precisely because of all the differing viewpoints that we should stick to the clearly delineated fact that Smith founded the Church of Christ. There are documents that back up that fact. Maybe that's a better way to approach it, he "incorporated the Church of Christ". We don't need to attach any significance to it, we are simply stating the fact that he filed papers with the government to get his following established as a legal church. Maybe we could use "Established the Church of Christ". The way I see it, when there is contention, don't equivocate, condense. Let's stick to what we can prove with paper. Padillah (talk) 17:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Following up on what A Sniper said, I might just add that a member of the Community of Christ is likely to think that the Church of Christ founded by Smith dissolved upon his death, but the movement and the priesthood lived on. There is also the theory that the Community of Christ was reorganized in 1834, and then again in 1838 each time the official name was changed. Incorporating the church is significant to the LDS Church, but both historically and religiously, it is not the most important thing that Smith did. Other elements of the movement, such as his revelations, the priesthood, Zion, the New and Everlasting Covenant, and the Kingdom of God, could have existed, and did exist, independently of the church.

Moreover, use of the term movement is fully accepted by historians. For example, on page 283 of his biography, Richard Bushman talks about publishing the D&C and says, "The book came at a time when the prophetic impulses of the movement were being regularized and systematized.... The time had come to channel energy and bring order to the movement." On page 112, he said, "When Joseph summarized Church principles for the public in 1833, he obscured his own part in the movement." In the preface, p. xxi, he said, "To get inside the movement, we have to think of Smith as the early Mormons thought of him and as he thought of himself--as a revelator." On page 285, he said, "By licensing his followers to speak with the Holy Ghost, he risked having the whole movement spin out of control." In referring to Smith's potential successors, Bushman said, "They were not successors but agents or replicas of the man [Smith] who had dominated the Mormon movement for fourteen years." On page 225, Bushman referred to Zion as "the heart of the whole restoration movement". I could go on with several more, but these were just the first few hits on Google Books. COGDEN 17:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

If all you Mormons and former Mormons would suddenly decamp to a new Wikipedia interest, I'd write simply that Joseph Smith was the founder of Mormonism or—if pushed—of the Latter Day Saint religion. (I'd make the plausible argument that "Mormonism" is no more a derogatory term than "Quakerism" or "Methodism.") For better or worse, I will never have the opportunity to cut this Gordian knot. We can't say Smith founded the LDS Church (although some encyclopedias do), and we can't say he founded the Church of Christ without tying ourselves in semantic knots trying to explain what that is. Realistically, "movement," however unsatisfactory, is the best compromise.--John Foxe (talk) 18:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Another alternative would be to write that, "Joseph Smith was the first prophet of what came to be known as the Latter Day Saint movement." This way we get away from the term "founder". --^StormRider 19:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't love that particular wording, but StormRider's idea is plausible. Foxe's idea to say that Smith founded "Mormonism" unfortunately aleanates the Community of Christ, which disowns the term. ...comments? ~BFizz 19:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I was being facetious about suggesting "Mormonism" as an alternative.

Storm, it seems to me that once you say "first prophet" you eliminate Moses, Isaiah, and John the Baptist from the scheme of things and so just as certainly make Joseph Smith the founder of a new religion.--John Foxe (talk) 19:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Though I think saying that Smith founded the "Latter Day Saint movement" is the best option, I don't really oppose saying that Smith "founded the Latter Day Saint religion". The term "Latter Day Saint", of course, would link to "Latter Day Saint movement", so this essentially just keeps the idea of the movement but explicitly adds the concept that the movement is a "religion", which is already implied and doesn't seem too controversial to me. I don't have a problem with that, but I wonder if some other Mormons might think that calling the Latter Day Saint movement a new religion implies that it is not the restoration of an old religion. COGDEN 20:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary edit break

John Foxe, I'm getting an "us vs. them" feel from the phrasing of your comment. "If all you Mormons and former Mormons..."? I'm not trying to pick a fight. In fact I kind of like the idea of "...founder of the Latter-Day Saint religion". The part I'm trying to get around is, from everything I know about the religion, Smith didn't want 7 to 12 splinter groups, he meant to establish a single religion. What happened to that religion after his death was secondary. Again, the example of the BAA, what it turned into is not the point, Walter Brown established the BAA, not the NBA. I give StormRiders idea a nod but I've got the same issue John Foxe has, "first prophet" gets messy when you start taking Abraham and Moses into account. What about Foxe's "Latter-Day Saint religion"? Padillah (talk) 20:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Padillah, I was just joking about "Mormons and former Mormons." Shouldn't joke about such things around here. But I'm afraid if Erma Bombeck were living and wrote, "The grass is always greener over the septic tank," someone would infer a message about pollution or rural hygiene.--John Foxe (talk) 20:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I hear ya, I did not expect this kind of push back on something I thought was a trivial technicality. I'm all for a heapin' helpin' of humor but given this talkpage's history I think it's best to play it conservatively. I also think I'm going to have to relent to the "movement" crowd. I'm not happy with it, I still think it misrepresents what Joseph Smith thought he was starting. But I also don't think this is a big enough point to press the battle. On to trimming the article. Padillah (talk) 22:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Working on such a controversial article has certainly raised my awareness about how small differences in wording can prove controversial, and that's no joke.--John Foxe (talk) 22:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Review: Early Years (EY)

I've read over this section (and plan to do so several more times this week). It seems to satisfy all good article critera as is, as I will detail now, though I see some potential (small) improvements. NOTE: this is not a formal Good article review. It is an informal consideration of the criteria, so that the article will be ready for a real review by June 2010.

WP:Good article criteria:

1. Well-written: It satisfies both (a) [clarity, correct grammar, spelling] and (b) [conforms to the MOS]. Small tweaks proposed below.
2. Factually accurate and verifiable: (a) (b) and (c) all satisfied. Minor cleanup listed below.
3. Broad in its coverage: (a) [main topics addressed] check! (b) [no unnecessary detail] Could be slightly condensed. Suggestions below.
4. Neutral: very. Any adjustments to the section (imho) should maintain its neutrality as currently exhibited.
5. Stable: check
6. Images: (a) [copyright clear] yes. (b) [well captioned] yes. I don't love the glasses image, but it probably won't stop the article from satisfying the criteria.

If you have any comments (agree? disagree?) relating to this summary of the EY section's conformity to Good article criteria, then feel free to discuss it here. Comments regarding specific suggestions should go in a separate, corresponding talk page section. ...comments? ~BFizz 20:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree.--John Foxe (talk) 21:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

EY prose tweaks

Feel free to propose tweaks to the section's prose here, alongside my suggestions. Listing a sentence here for tweaking does not mean that it absolutely must be changed, but rather, that it is something that we should consider improving, if possible. ...comments? ~BFizz 20:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

1. Stricken with a crippling bone infection at age eight, he hobbled on crutches as a child. - The flow of this sentence seems odd, the way it ends with "as a child". ...comments? ~BFizz 20:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

   Proposal: (pending...propose and sign here)

   (discuss here)

   I agree.--John Foxe (talk) 21:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

2. In 1816-17, the Smith family moved west to the village of Palmyra in western New York,[4] and by July 1820 had obtained a mortgage for a 100-acre farm in the nearby town of Manchester,[5] an area that had fueled repeated religious revivals during this time known as the Second Great Awakening. - Long sentence. ...comments? ~BFizz 20:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

   Proposal (enacted. diff): Make into two sentences: "...western New York. By July 1820 the family had..." ...comments? ~BFizz 20:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

   (discuss here)

   I agree.--John Foxe (talk) 21:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

   Enacted, and also swapped past perfect for simple past tense. See diff above. ...comments? ~BFizz 02:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Trim

Since Foxe is apparently tired of the endless debate relating to minor lede tweaks, may I again open up discussion to the topic of trimming the article? I don't know what to cut out, but I know it can be done. The sections of Smith's life can be brought into more compact summary style, since they have main articles. Now that the "teachings" subsections are fleshed out, we might want to consider condensing them as well. I propose that by June 2010 we have this article ready for a Good Article nomination. ...comments? ~BFizz 19:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the "teachings" section still does need some work. Some of the information is still uncited. I think it's all solidly verifiable, but we just need some good citation work. Also, I'm not certain that there isn't something that should be in the "teachings" section that we are leaving out. For the historical sections, I'm more confident that they are pretty comprehensive, at least briefly hitting all the main historical plot points, but it may be possible to do some careful trimming.

Fortunately, the article is on the long side, but not too far out of proportion to the denseness sheer quantity of Smith's notable acts and teachings. Right now it's about 51 kb of text. By comparison, the featured article Samuel Adams is 55 kb long, Daniel Boone is 37 kb long, James Bowie is 32 kb long, and Harriet Tubman is 49 kb long. COGDEN 20:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

And 32kb is pretty long for an article about a fellow whose chief to fame is getting killed at the Alamo.--John Foxe (talk) 21:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Correction: I used an automated tool that carefully counted the readable prose for this Joseph Smith article, and it is currently 45 kb, which I think is quite reasonable for this topic, although if we can further streamline, that would be good. COGDEN 00:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Cut monuments and memorials section?

Maybe there's one low hanging fruit. I know I probably introduced the section, but on seeing its implementation, I don't really see much value to the "monuments and memorials" section. If someone wants to start a "list" article, we could link to it from the "see also" section, or just link the two notable memorials directly, but I don't think there's enough interesting material for an entire section. COGDEN 23:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me.--John Foxe (talk) 09:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Ditto. I'll take the liberty of moving the content to a new list article. ...comments? ~BFizz 04:52, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Done. See List of monuments and memorials of Joseph Smith, Jr. ...comments? ~BFizz 05:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.--John Foxe (talk) 13:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Piecemeal review

There are 6 subsections on Smith's life, and 6 subsections on his teachings. There are also about 6 weeks until June. I, for one, will (informally) review 2 sections per week (and review the others when I have extra time) according to the Good article criteria, and will especially look for ways to condense the prose. Some sections, I admit, will be un-condensable, and may in fact need to be expanded. But I'm going to try and get this article ready for a good article nomination by June, and I invite you all to do the same. ...comments? ~BFizz 05:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I've started reviewing and streamlining parts of the article as well. I see the main weakness right now as being in the Teachings section. This part is a little more challenging than the historical sections because we don't have any comprehensive treatises on the teachings of Joseph Smith. Bushman and Brodie focused more on the events, than the teachings. Rather, discussion about his teachings is spread over dozens of books and articles. I did another pass over "cosmology and theology" and feel pretty good about that part, as well as the first paragraph of "religious authority". But the other parts of "Teachings" don't seem to be quite the same quality, particularly the "History and eschatology" section, which still needs citations and maybe some reworking. COGDEN 23:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

As further preparation for a good article nomination, I'd like to list the article for peer review once or twice before June. COgden, and the rest of you, would you prefer to wait a little while until we've gotten the "Teachings" sections revamped, or should we list it for peer review now? ...comments? ~BFizz 03:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I have no preference either way as to the timing, but peer review is a good idea. COGDEN 18:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

How did he come by the Golden Plates

Everything I've ever read (including the Wikipedia article on the plates) says Smith was told where they were but refused access to them for a time. I've never read a first vision story that had the angel bestow the plates on Smith. Shouldn't the correct phrase be he was directed to the plates? Padillah (talk) 17:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

According to Smith, he was denied access to the plates by the angel for some years, then when he was considered ready, was granted access. Due to the heavy involvement of the angel, I'd say 'bestow' applies, even if the literal action of the angel handing the plates over is not clear from the accounts. However, I'm not opposed to rewording. ...comments? ~BFizz 19:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Smith never said that the angel gave him directions to where the plates were located on Cumorah. Rather, he said (1838 account) that he saw their location in a vision, so that when he arrived there, he recognized the place. At least two other second-hand accounts say that he used his seer stone to find the exact location. These descriptions are compatible, because even if he saw the location in a vision, he might not have known how to get there without his seer stone.

I think it's accurate to say that the angel "gave" him the plates. "Bestow" is just a somewhat archaic word for "give". I don't think the word "give" necessarily means that the angel handed them to Smith. The angel was the guardian of the plates, and by allowing Smith to take them, the angel was effectively "giving" them to him. Smith's 1838 account says that the angel "delivered them up to me", which I think is also equivalent to "gave them to me". COGDEN 18:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

EY ref cleanup

Feel free to add to this section regarding ref cleanup. So far I've only identified one item for cleanup. This reference is used once in the EY section, and once in the following. It is a reference to History of the Church, and appears to be redundant with the later publications of "History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" listed under the name Roberts, B. H. The latter publications appear to be unused by our inline references. This redundancy should be resolved somehow. Ideas? ...comments? ~BFizz 20:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

It is not quite redundant. The version of Smith's early history found in History of the Church has been somewhat altered from Smith's original 1838-39 text, and it's more than just changes to grammar and spelling. I think it's better to use Smith's original words where possible, which is the version most used by historians. COGDEN 18:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Since the latter references appear to be unused, should we simply remove them? Can anyone verify that they are unused? ...comments? ~BFizz 20:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Quinn and the magic world view

I'd like to challenge Dennis Michael Quinn on charges of being a biased source and not valid for information. If that's not possible, could we state that "It is believed by some that Joseph Smith Jr. practiced folk magic" because it's a matter of opinion as to whether or not he practiced magic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snackwars (talk • contribs) 03:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm unfamiliar with the source, is it already in the article? I feel the same about this as I do about being a "prophet" - there's a question of ability. How can you definitively declare that someone practices an art that hasn't been proved to exist? Same as we would qualify his credentials at being "believed by Mormons to be a prophet" we'd have to qualify black magic in some way also. Padillah (talk) 12:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Since the 1980s, there has been an academic consensus that Joseph Smith and his family practiced folk magic, even by some of the most apologetic Mormon researchers. Also, though Quinn is a faithful independent Mormon (i.e., he believes that Smith was an authentic prophet of God) and is therefore certainly biased, he is recognized as the preeminent authority on Smith's use of folk magic. Not all his peers agree with all his conclusions (some of them think he is too ready to accept supernatural explanations for Smith's prophethood, while others think he is at times too speculative), but his book is recognized as the preeminent work on the subject. COGDEN 17:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I would have a difficult time classifying Quinn as outside of reliable sources. I agree that he can get out on the edge of common scholarship, but never so much as to disqualify his work entirely. It is appropriate to be judicious of all sources when it comes to religion, but at the same time we cannot pick and choose among recognized scholars in the field. --^StormRider 18:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the background, guys. So, Quinn is reliable enough but how do we present the "practice" of folk magic? Magic not being proven there's a bit of a glitch. Do we simply consider that they tried to use magic, regardless of the outcome? Do we qualify the statement as coming from "certain reports"? I'm lax to make the bald statement that a person "practiced magic" because I think the idea is just silly, but what the person s actions are isn't determined by the results of those actions. Padillah (talk) 19:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

"Folk magic was a common practice of the time and the Smith family was no different" would seem to be enough. Other thoughts? It is funny that this catches attention at all. My mother as long as she lived still threw a pinch of salt over her shoulder. I know people who continue to the practice today. People still don't like to walk underneath a ladder and black cats still pose a warning to some individuals. Folk magic or folk traditions are not dead even today. --^StormRider 20:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Padillah, I'd suggest taking a look at D. Michael Quinn, Early Mormonism and the Magic World View (Salt Lake City: Signature, 1998).--John Foxe (talk) 20:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I suppose highlighting that it was a common practice at the time (which it was) makes the prose more neutral than having the article single out and seemingly "attack" the Smith family for it. Routerone (talk) 20:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Can we quantify how common it was, or at least back up that it was very common? I mean, was it common to 1% of the population, or 90%? tedder (talk) 20:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Although I have no statistic, I'd say that "folk magic" was a certain regional element in what became known as the "Burned over district", in that period of history. But I think that in this page its problys been overexaggerated deeply to knock Smith's authenicity. It was a merely part of local culture and the Smith family embraced that, however it was likely nowhere near as "severe" as to the point it is described as in these related articles. Hence the Smith family were not as "hell bent" on it as people would like to think. It may be more apropriate to say that "the Smith family were associated with the Folk magic culture of the time". But if people are going to object to that I'd like to see the source paragraph this statement was cited from. Routerone (talk) 20:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Quinn's page 31, cited in the text, includes this sentence: "At this time the revivals of western New York's so-called 'Burned-over District' were bringing thousands out of private folk religion and into organized churches, whose clergy opposed folk magic. Nonetheless, Smith's vision of the divine gave him every reason to ignore the clergy's instructions, including denunciations of the occult."--John Foxe (talk) 21:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Foxe. Now the quote establishes the following points:

• As I presumed, folk magic was a cultural element of the time and of the region
• The "Burned over district" a time of religious revival
• Clergymen condemned folk magic (stated already in the article)

Now my issue? It seems to mention Smith himself had the connection to folk magic but this seems to be narrative than stating more direct fact. Plus it does not say he practiced it with his family, or perhaps even undertook it at all. A self made conclusion presuming "the Smith family did" because "the region did" seems to be at the bottom of this and seems quite tedious. So, could it possible you provide some more text for you to back up this point? As the text in the article does seem to be synthesised from what the text actually says. I'd like as a result, the article to mention more of folk magic being a regional tenure at the time in the "burned over district". But if you can't back it up I recommend we get rid of the "Smith with his family practiced folk magic" statement. Routerone (talk) 21:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The thesis of Quinn's book is that Smith and his family used diving rods, seer stones, amulets, incantations, and rituals to summon spirits. It's a big book. Perhaps these quotations from Bushman can serve as a rough summary from the perspective of a Mormon scholar:

The Smiths were as susceptible as their neighbors to treasure-seeking folklore. In addition to rod and stone divining, the Smith probably believed in the rudimentary astrology found in the ubiquitous almanacs. Magical parchments handed down in the Hyrum Smith family may have originally belonged to Joseph Sr. (50)...Joseph Jr. never repudiated the stones or denied their power to find treasure. Remnants of the magical culture stayed with him to the end.(51)

--John Foxe (talk) 22:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

What is it we are trying to establish? The article currently says, "With his family, he took part in religious folk magic", and this is supported by the following references: Quinn (1998, p. 30)("Joseph Smith's family was typical of many early Americans who practiced various forms of Christian folk magic."); Bushman (2005, p. 50) (referring to the Smiths' use of rod and stone divining, astrology, and magical parchments). Isn't this enough? I don't see why we need more. COGDEN 22:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with COGDEN, we've got what we've come for. Short sentence. States the fact. Provides citation. Does not overemphasize. Everybody else OK? Padillah (talk) 12:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

By the way, sorry for not "signing" my statement, I new at this sort of thing. The issue I have with stating that Joseph Smith Jr. did practice magic is that it seems to contradict Wikipedia's claim of neutrality because the claim is one from a critical standpoint. As far as I'm concerned, anyone could've written an article or a book and then be used as a source--therefore whatever source is used, there ought to be a fair description of Joseph Smith Jr. in order to be "unbiased". Of course, I don't know how you talk about "folk magic" without taking one side or the other. If it is true that Joseph Smith Jr. did use items such as seer stones--it is quite difficult to call it magic if there are some who claim it is a form of priesthood. Doesn't this reveal a little prejudice? For some, this is the power given from God Thus, I find it difficult to claim that the use of seer stones or other such items constitutes "folk magic". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snackwars (talk • contribs) 03:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. The way to sign is to include four tildes (~) at the end of your comment. As to Smith's practice of magic, this is not just a critical perspective, but an apologetic perspective as well. There is a consensus among scholars that Smith practiced magic. Even if Smith's use of seer stones is called "priesthood" or a "spiritual gift" from 1827 onward, prior to that time he used the stones for activities that are clearly folk magic (i.e., locating enchanted treasures), and essentially no Mormon scholar disputes that anymore. And the Smith family used other common magical practices as well, such as dowsing rods and magic parchments. COGDEN 05:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Welcome Snackwars! By "unbiased" we mean we don't leave information out because it makes the subject look better or worse. There are several articles that have horrible stuff in them, but they are facts and are presented plainly and with no (or little) malice toward the subject. This entry on Smith for example - if we were to leave this out on the basis that it made Smith look bad, that would be biased. If we put it in and made sure that everybody saw it bu making it bold and going on for three paragraphs about it, that would be biased. To make the plain statement and not over-exaggerate the situation is where we want the article to be. Keep those quesetions comming. Help keep us on our toes! Padillah (talk) 12:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying and you may have a good point but I still disagree with the "apologetic view", in my mind it's simply a falsehood that has been circulated so much that it's considered a "fact". As far as I understand, we don't have any reliable primary sources to support this view--only some scholars who claim that Joseph Smith Jr. was a magician. However, we do have primary sources--such the Joseph Smith--History that state that rumors were spreading about him and there's nothing mentioned about him "locating treasures" for financial gain or practicing "folk magic." Why are these sources not considered? It states the facts from an LDS view, but because a popular idea prevails among scholars, we just silence the LDS view. There are sources--not just claims--that I have. In my mind, we should have the facts but not just rumors that have circulated into so-called "fact" that can't be backed up by a reliable primary source. I'm saying that the sources are biased and that they deserve to be challenged. I would say that an LDS source is much more legitimate in speaking about the LDS Church as opposed to an "outsider". Snackwars (talk) 14:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snackwars (talk • contribs) 14:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Welcome, Snackwars. Wikipedia verifiability rules demand not primary, but secondary and tertiary, sources: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy....In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments; as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources where available, such as in history, medicine, and science." In consequence, for Wikipedia purposes, Quinn's book is to be preferred over Smith's own testimony, and a thoroughly skeptical piece published in an peer-reviewed academic journal is preferred to a faith-promoting article in an LDS magazine. That's just the way Wikipedia works. (You can sign your posts by typing four tildes (~)at the end.)--John Foxe (talk) 19:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with using primary sources, if they are used properly. Snackwars, there are both primary and secondary sources, and plenty of Mormon sources that document the Smith family's participation in folk magic. Indeed, there is a consensus among both Mormon and non-Mormon scholars about this magic. LDS scholars do not disagree with this. If you are looking for primary sources, they are plentiful: in fact, Smith himself admitted to being a money digger, although he said he didn't make much money from it. Besides this word directly from the horse's mouth, we have statements by Smith's mother, his father, Martin Harris, numerous Palmyra residents who knew Smith, both friendly and unfriendly, and many others. COGDEN 23:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

In reading over this entire discussion, I am amazed at the lack of credulity that is shown. The Bushman quote was cited thusly: "The Smiths were as susceptible as their neighbors to treasure-seeking folklore. In addition to rod and stone divining, the Smith probably believed in the rudimentary astrology found in the ubiquitous almanacs." Words such as "susceptible" and "probably" do NOT indicate FACTS, they indicate OPINION - and THAT is a FACT. Therefore, I hold that Bushman cannot be used as a reliable source of FACT on this topic. Bushman's own words show that he is stating opinion, not fact. If you have other sources (as you indicate) which you can quote that will support the premise of this topic, please do so. Otherwise, please remove this opinion from this article as it is my understanding that Wikipedia articles are supposed to be based on, and supported with, sources of fact, not opinion. Mcsand6 (talk) 05:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Bushman is only less than 100% certain on whether the Smith family practiced astrology. He makes no such reservation on the issue of folk magic in general, which is what the article discusses. There is a complete consensus in the field that the Smith family practiced folk magic (especially seer stones). COGDEN 05:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Then please quote for me wherein he states 100% certainty on the issue of folk magic as the words "susceptible" and "probably" that were quoted don't indicate either certainty or fact. Can you also list for me the other sources you are referring to regarding the "complete consensus in the field."? And, I don't believe that seer stones are "folk magic" any more than I believe that the vision and prophecies in the Old and New Testament are "folk magic". Thus, if the only sources you have are regarding seer stones, you are not dealing with fact, but rather one person's belief that seer stones are folk magic over another person's belief that seer stones are of God.Mcsand6 (talk) 05:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

If there's not scholarly consensus that the Smith family practiced folk magic, what source would you offer to dispute it?--John Foxe (talk) 10:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

That's a rather convenient argument: I get to define what the facts are according to what I believe. What says your praying to the invisible man in the clouds doesn't appear as "magic" to me? Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. So argument could be made that several different things are folk magic, simply because the first person to see them thought they were magic. If the person thought they were practicing folk magic, it is irrelevant what you think it was. If the belief of the day was to subscribe to the common belief in folk magic then what was practiced was folk magic. Unless a citation can be provided that quotes someone from the Smith family along the lines of "...everyone thought it was folk magic, but we knew better". Padillah (talk) 12:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps your objection is a only semantic one, Padillah. Lucy Mack Smith famously commented that her family's "drawing Magic circles or sooth saying" didn't detract from their farm work. So, true, she didn't call the practices "folk magic," she called them "magic." For what it's worth, I have no problem dropping the softening adjective "folk."--John Foxe (talk) 13:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

yes and no. My objection is in redefining the meaning of a practice because of objective personal beliefs. If Lucy Mack Smith says "magic" we can't redefine what she was doing simply because we believe drawing circles is "geometric exercise". I'm not objecting to the use of "folk" I'm objecting to Mcsand6's desire to redefine the actions of the family because of Mcsand6's beliefs. If the above is a direct quote from Lucy Mack Smith's own writing then I say the argument for calling what was practiced "magic" (in whatever qualified form is necessary) is ended. There may be room to argue the adjective but not the descriptive noun. Padillah (talk) 13:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. And whether we call it "magic" or "folk magic", there are plenty of sources to back it up. Bushman simply calls it "magic", and he does not equivocate in stating that the Smith family practiced magic. For example, he said, "Magic and religion melded in the Smith family culture" (p. 51). Likewise, Brodie uses the word magic: referring to "Joseph's own admissions of indulging in magic arts" (p. 16), and Smith's "disillusionment with his own magic" (p. 31) Quinn, of course, very frequently uses the term magic, as does Brooke. Remini uses both "magic" (p. 33: "The witch hazel stick and mineral rod, together with spells and magic incantations, aided them [Joseph and his father] in their hunt") and "folk magic" (p. 16, Joseph Sr. "continued relying on the Bible and on various forms of folk magic he regularly practiced".) Jan Shipps uses the term magic as well: "[T]he Smith family held in suspension both a reliance on magic and the occult arts and a throughgoing acceptance of the truth of the claims set out in Judeo-Christian scriptures" (p. 7); "Moreover, magic and the occult were so fascinating to the prophet's father--and perhaps also to Alvin and other members of the family--that the more esoteric components of the western New York religio-cultural situation were additional ingredients in the immediate familial milieu in which Joseph Smith, Jr., grew into manhood" (p. 8). COGDEN 18:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for providing some quotes for me. The one quote you did not reference is that of Lucy Mack Smith. You state that she "famously commented" on her family's use of magic but you did not quote the source of that statement. I own two copies of her own writings and do not find that quote anywhere in them. Would you please let me know the source of your quote? As far as my "beliefs" not being a legitimate objection to the definition of the Smith family's actions, I would say that when it comes to religious actions, such as a belief in seer stones, a person cannot simply redefine the actions as magic because they believe that they are. Religion is not science, it is spiritual and has to be defined in those terms, not in scientific or social terms. our comment about the "invisible man in the clouds" indicates your lack of religious belief and understanding, thus your opposition to my viewpoint. I don't see how a prophet of God's life can be discussed without a respect for religion and the impact it has in the lives a majority of the people in the United States. Yes, statistics show that the majority of citizens of the United States (to which this Wikipedia site is geared) ARE religious. Also, you ask me for evidence to dispute that the Smith family practiced magic. In the United States of America, one doesn't have prove one's innocence, others have to prove the guilt. Why do I need to provide evidence that the Smith family disputed ever having used magic? If they didn't use it, they wouldn't have ever talked about whether or not they used it. As for your quotes of scholars who attribute the use of magic to the Smith family, what are their sources? How do they know that they used magic. What proof do THEY have that what they are saying is true. Do they have eye-witness accounts? Or, are they just quoting the rhetoric and rumors of the day which continually flew at the members of the Smith family? Mcsand6 (talk) 15:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I know you are not responding to John Foxe's and Padillah's comments and not just mine, but let me just say that personal beliefs are irrelevant to editing this article. For the purpose of this article, we are constrained to follow documented historical conclusions and sources. Lucy Mack Smith's comments about the Smiths "trying to win the faculty of Abrac" and "drawing magic circles or sooth saying" appeared in the original 1845 draft of her Biographical Sketches. The 1853 book was heavily edited by Martha Jane Coray and her husband, so that certain parts including this one were deleted. But you can find a parallel edition showing the comparison between 1845 and 1853 versions here.

As to Smith's father's admissions, a good one is his statement in 1837 that "I know more about money-digging than any man in this generation for I have been in the business for more than thirty years!" In fact, Smith, Sr. was a dowser as evidenced by several sources including a letter to him from his brother Jesse that condemned him for dowsing and indicating that Smith, Sr. had been doing it since the Smiths had moved from Vermont.

We're not just talking here about mere rumors floating around Palmyra. The Smith's practice of magic is very well attested by both hostile and friendly sources, including eye-witnesses and the Smith family themselves. Both Mormon and non-Mormon scholars acknowledge the practice of magic. For example, echoing what Bushman (a staunch Mormon) has said, BYU historian Marvin S. Hill said in 1990, "Now, most historians, Mormon or not, who work with the sources, accept as fact Joseph Smith's career as a village magician. Too many of his closest friends and family admitted as much, and some of Joseph's own revelations support the contention." (BYU Studies 30:72 (Fall 1990)). COGDEN 16:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I have done some further research on this subject and found that your "famous comment" attributed to Lucy Mack Smith was grossly misquoted. Here is her actual quote from her preliminary manuscript of "Biographical Sketches" p. 40, she told her reader NOT to think "that we stopt our labor and went at trying to win the faculty of Abrae drawing Magic circles or sooth saying to the neglect of all kinds of business." Also please note the following quote in the notes, written by Richard L. Bushman (H. Rodney Sharp Professor of History a the University of Dleaware), in his essay, "Joseph Smith's Family Background" (found in the book "The Prophet Joseph Smith, Essays on the Life and Mission of Joseph Smith", p. 18), "The evidence for Smith family involvement in treasure-seeking is presented in a controversial book by D. Michael Quinn, "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View" (Salt Lake City, Utah: Signature Books, 1987), pp. 1-52. Quinn argues that magical practices were consistent with religious faith in Joseph Smith's time. The book has been criticized for exaggerating the degree of Smith family involvement in magic and for making speculative leaps without sufficient confirming evidence. For another view of the Smith family and magic, see Bushman, "Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism", pp. 69-76." This essay, itself, also gives a very clear description of the Smith family activities that have been classified by others as practicing magic. Mcsand6 (talk) 16:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood the quotation,Mcsand6. Lucy Mack Smith is not denying that the family practiced magic, she's just saying that while they drew magic circles and engaged in sooth saying, they also went about their farm work, i.e., that they weren't just lazy loafers relying on superstition to pay the bills.--John Foxe (talk) 16:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, her quote seems very straightforward to me, she doesn't want her neighbors to think that they stopped work in order to win the faculty of Abrae, draw magic circles, or to soothsay at the neglect of their business. You are twisting her words to say what you want them to say to support your beliefs. Just read the quote the way it was written and not twist it. Mcsand6 (talk) 16:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The quotation is indeed straightforward--which is why it got zipped from the 1853 edition of Lucy's memoirs. (By the way, it's "Abrac," as in "abracadabra.")--John Foxe (talk) 17:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

So, I think that you and I ought to agree to disagree. Mcsand6 (talk) 18:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

We disagree. But that doesn't change Lucy Mack Smith's frank admission that the Smith family practiced magic. Nor does it change the consensus of scholars, Mormon and non-Mormon, that the Smith family used diving rods, seer stones, amulets, incantations, and rituals to summon spirits.--John Foxe (talk) 20:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I think I understand Mcsand6 position a little better now. He contends that the mechanism behind the divining and seer stones is Divine in nature, not magical. That's where I fall short, I can't change the standard definition of "divining" to make it be Christian just because it's about a major Christian figurehead. Very few people, in 1830 or now, would mistake a claim for divining water to be based in anything but metaphysical "magic". And I don't see any evidence that Joseph, or any of the Smiths, redefined their understanding or their initial use to intimate a divine nature rather than a metaphysical one. Padillah (talk) 20:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Quinn writes that the laws against magical practices (like the one in New York) were "passed and implemented in early America by civil authorities who accepted the clergy's denunciation of the magic world view and the rationalist ridicule of it." (27) In other words, there was a simultaneous attack on the sort of magic practiced by the Smith family from both rationalists and the Protestant clergy—neither of which viewed it as "divine."--John Foxe (talk) 21:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Magic and religion usually go hand-in-hand. The magic practiced by the Smiths did have a religious and even Christian character (which explains why Smith's stones could serve a dual purpose as both an occult medium and as the source for the Book of Mormon), but that doesn't make them any less magic. You could call them "quasi-Christian magic", if you wanted, but I think that just complicates things. Either way, it's magic. Which is not to cast an aspersion on these practices. Christianity as a whole, which I am a committed part of, is fundamentally rooted in the magic performed by Jesus and his disciples, but we don't call it that anymore. If Jesus reanimates a corpse or transmutes water into wine, we now call it a "miracle". If anybody else were to do the same thing Jesus did, we would call it "magic" or "alchemy". But ultimately it's the same thing. COGDEN 22:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I know I'm sliding off topic here, but I want to register my disagreement with the notion that magic and religion are similar things—something nineteenth century men, whether orthodox Protestant or rationalist, understood. Magic and religion do not usually go hand-in-hand. Magic uses words of power such as spells, charms, and curses but does not usually have theological content. On the other hand, religious devotion emphasizes the prayer of devotion and expresses hope in a non-material world to come, not material gain in this world. Much early testimony about Joseph Smith was that he was an irreligious youth. My own POV is that Smith's invention of the First Vision was in part an attempt to disguise his early effective agnosticism.--John Foxe (talk) 00:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't mean to further slide off topic, but objectively, there's no formal difference between a witch using a spell to call down the powers of the Triple Goddess, and a Christian using a prayer to invoke the supernatural powers of the Trinity. The main difference is that witches have no problem calling what they do "magic". But anyway, sorry for the gratuitous philosophizing. For purposes of this article, all the secondary sources (Bushman, Brodie, Quinn, etc.) say that the Smith family culture was a mixture of magic and religion. Its character was both religious and magical. Quinn argues that in the early 1800s, the distinction between occult magic and Christianity was much blurrier than it is today. But for our purposes, there is no reason not to use the word "magic" to apply to the Smith family dowsing, scrying, etc. COGDEN 20:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

One reference and I'm done. In The Religions of the Roman Empire (1970), the classicist John Ferguson writes: "Magic and religion have always existed side by side....[but we] may make a theoretical distinction; in magic a ritual is performed and if it is correct in every detail the desired result must follow unless countered by a stronger magic, whereas in religion the result depends upon the will of a personal god." (157-58)--John Foxe (talk) 21:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but the use of terms is important. To most Christians, calling Jesus' miracles magic is anathema. It is the same with calling Smith's actions magic or working with magic. When he functioned as a prophet, his actions were not magic. When others sought him out to hire him for his abilities of finding lost items or to seek for Spanish gold, he functioned as a man. Just attempt to call Jesus a user of magic on the Jesus article or even the Christianity article and see how much push back you get. I have seen this attempted using the work mythology on both articles. Mythology certainly applies within an academic context, but for an article for the general public it is out of line.

Most of Quinn's book on magic world view could easily be identified as fringe. It is not mainstream thought by other academics. In fact, he takes many positions that are fringe and are not supported by other academics. We should probably use some care when sources are used for specific things and confirm that other scholars support the same statements and the same context. --^StormRider 21:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, at least you've got us back on topic,Storm. When Smith was paid to search for Spanish gold, he did so as a practitioner of folk magic, something that Bushman, Brodie, and Quinn all agree on. But Smith performed no miracles, and he gave not even the tip-of-the-hat to religion while going about his business of scrying.--John Foxe (talk) 22:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

As I recall, when Bushman discussed the topic, Knight hired both Smiths because of their reputation of having found lost items. Knight had been digging for over a month without success and then hired the Smiths. After doing so for another week Smith continue to implore Knight to give it up, which he finally did. Bushman does not, as I recall, state Smith was using magic at this specific event. Your last sentence does not conflict with what I have stated. Before 1823 Joseph was hired by others to assist in finding lost items and other treasure. He was hired by reputation and word of mouth, not because Smith hung a sign out advertising a business. After Joseph grew up and after 1823, he consistently became more serious about what he felt was his religious calling. In other words, from the age of 18 on, he became more serious. It is extremely odd that these other men who hired him were all devout Christians who hired a boy between the ages of 14 and 18. The point that is important is that Christians sought him out for assistance. These others saw no conflict between their religion and their objective of hiring others to hunt for treasure. Who is to blame; those too poor they would do anything to earn a living or those who hired them? Does it really matter?--^StormRider 22:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Though much of Quinn's work is speculative, I think that most of the important points are supported by his academic peers. Being speculative is not the same as being fringe, if the speculations are considered important by mainstream academics. The main area where Quinn's views might be considered "fringe" (according to Wikipedia) is Quinn's belief as a Mormon that Smith was an actual prophet and that he had real access to magical and religious powers. But he's careful to make these views explicit, and his conclusions do not rest solely upon his faith. Other than that, merely being speculative doesn't make it fringe. By and large, the work has been well received by non-Mormon scholars in general, and by some Mormon scholars (like Bushman) who continue to cite the work but don't always agree with every point.

Back to the magic issue, Storm, I think that everybody agrees that it's fair to characterize the use of seer stones in treasure hunting as magic. For purposes of this article, I don't think we need to worry about whether using seer stones to translate the Book of Mormon could also count as magic, given that Smith used the exact same process. That issue hasn't come up, it would undoubtedly raise the hackles of many Mormons, and we can side-step that issue. But ultimately, I think that it's futile to try to formulate some exact dividing line between magic and religion. Ferguson's definition discussed by John Foxe above doesn't really help in the context of Mormonism, where the distinction between man and God is blurred. Priesthood, in Mormonism, is the power of man to act for God, not merely the power to ask God to act for man. Frankly, Ferguson's definition loses some usefulness within other Christianity and Judaism, given that Moses and Jesus would still be magicians under that definition. (Though Ferguson's definition would probably exclude Elijah.) Ferguson's definition would also classify the Catholic Eucharist as a magical act, as well as any ritual purification such as baptism. COGDEN 23:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

While I could pursue the difference between religion and magic beyond Ferguson, I think we all agree that I'd be headed off topic big time. As for Joseph Smith's clients being "devout Christians," I have my doubts, Storm. So far as I've ever read, none of these treasure hunts were commenced with Christian prayer, although there was plenty of non-Christian superstition such as magic circles, charms, incantations, and at least one sacrificial black sheep. There's a paper waiting to be written about the prior religious attitudes of Joseph Smith's employers if that information can be determined from this distance, but I certainly wouldn't believe any of these fellows were devout Christians just because they lived in upstate New York in early nineteenth-century America.--John Foxe (talk) 01:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the ultimate answer to the question posed by Snackwars is that saying something like, "It is believed by some that Joseph Smith Jr. practiced folk magic," is not appropriate, given that there is a consensus that he practiced magic (or "folk magic", or "religious folk magic", or whatever we want to call it). Are we considering changing the term "religious folk magic" to something else? I have no problem with "religious folk magic", because the Smith family's magic was grounded in religion. However, I'd also be open to a change to "magic" (which is certainly more succinct) or "folk magic". I don't like "folk religion", which is correct but not very descriptive. COGDEN 20:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm satisfied with "folk magic." Just plain "magic" is fine too. But I'm not sure what "religious folk magic" is. The Smith family's engagement with divining rods, seer stones, and amulets wasn't grounded in religion. They read the Bible and were more-or-less conventionally religious; but that was a separate aspect of their lives, unconnected to the "folk magic." They were like ancient Mediterranean peoples who participated in a religion (or more than one) but who also rubbed amulets, prepared curse tablets, and consulted horoscopes. So did the practical agnostics among the ancients. Being superstitious didn't (and doesn't) necessarily make you religious. For instance, moderns who believe that their deceased relatives are throwing pennies at them from heaven are superstitious but not necessarily religious.--John Foxe (talk) 21:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

(new indent) I prefer folk magic because the term magic is so broad and encompasses such a diverse set of beliefs. Folk magic was very common during this era allowing the common citizen to see no conflict between their Christian beliefs and using a divining rod to find their well. This really is an interesting topic. I know people in the panhandle of Florida who still use a divining rod. Others will still seek them out to properly locate their well before using a professional to dig for it. These people are not pagans, but just simple Protestants who use a rod to find water. --^StormRider 21:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I see no evidence that folk magic, which was condemned by Protestant clergy of every denomination during the early nineteenth century, was practiced by many Protestant church members. Catholics may have been a different story and so too men like the Smiths, who paid lip service to conventional religion but who dabbled in the commercial possibilities of popular superstition.--John Foxe (talk) 10:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I was only looking at Bushman who stated that Willard Chase, Sally Chase, William Stafford, Joshua Stafford all use stones to search for treasure. Bushman appears to be using Philastus Hurlbut who interviewed these people about the Smith's treasure hunting only to find out it was a common feature for the whole region. Bushman states that money-digging was "epidemic in upstate New York" as well as Vermont. See page 49 and 50 of Bushman's book Rough Stone Rolling.

Bushman goes on to say, "Ordinary people apparently had no difficulty blending Christianity with magic. Willard Chase, the most vigorous of the Manchester treasure-seekers, was a Methodist class leader at the time he knew the Smiths, and in his obituary was described as a minister. At the time he employed Joseph to use his stone to find Spanish bullion, Josiah Stowell was an upright Presbyterian and an honored man in the his community. The so-called credulity of the money diggers can be read as evidence of their general faith in invisible forces. Christian belief in angels and devils blended with belief in guardian spirits and magical powers." It would appear that the Protestant church members of numerous churches had no problem combining magic into their beliefs and they certainly were not so pure as you think.

In 1823 Joseph, at the age of 18, was commanded by the angel Moroni to "quit the company of the money-diggers" i.e. that would be all those members of other churches that were pursuing gold by their various magical means. It should be noted that Joseph needed to repent because even after being told to stop, he did assist them but never as instigator or leader. As is evident in the 1825 search by Stowell, even though he went unwillingly and finally convinced Stowell to stop. At the time, Smith is quoted by Alva Hale that gift in seeing with a stone was a gift from God, but that "peeping" was all a damned nonsense; he had been deceived in his treasure seeking, but he did not intend to deceive anyone else. Smith clearly differentiated between the work of a seer and the fraudulent work of peeping or glass-looking. --^StormRider 21:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the first part, but Moroni's commandment to "quit the company of the money-diggers" would be dated to 1827. According to Martin Harris, Lorenzo Saunders, and Joseph Capron, Smith led money-digs during the summer of 1827. (See Vogel 1994 at 213.) Then in August 1827, Smith visited Harmony and had a confrontation with Emma's father in harmony and promised him that he would give up "glass looking". Then Smith returned to Palmyra to get the plates, and it was only then that he told Harris that the angel had told him to "quit the company of the money-diggers". I don't think there is any evidence that Smith was conducting his digs from 1823-27 in disobedience to the angel. That would be pretty brazen, considering how unforgiving Moroni was about obeying his commandments to the letter. COGDEN 23:41, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Storm, I agree that that a number of ordinary people around Palmyra were hunting treasure. I disagree that many (if any) of these folks were devout Protestants. Bushman names only two treasure hunters affiliated with churches, Chase and Stowell, and there is nothing to indicate that these two men were anything but nominal in their religious affiliation. The affidavit that Chase gave to Hurlbut is remarkably non-religious in content; in 1829, Stowell, the Presbyterian church member, headed off to Canada to try to sell the copyright of the Book of Mormon. As Billy Sunday once said, "Sleeping in a garage doesn't make you a car." If the treasure hunters of Palmyra had been truly devout Protestants, we would expect to hear of them asking God's blessings on their endeavors and commencing their hunting sessions with prayer. Instead, we read of incantations and the dribbling of sheep's blood on the ground.--John Foxe (talk) 11:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

No true Protestant would have engaged in such behavior, eh? alanyst ^/talk/ 16:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

As I said above, we know all too little about Smith's fellow treasure hunters, and the subject deserves more investigation. But I'm not impressed by the use of church affiliations as an indicator of spirituality. Of the four U.S. presidents who were Baptists, Warren Harding, Harry Truman, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton, only Carter was known for his Protestant piety. The other three, ah...were not.--John Foxe (talk) 18:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

John, I think you might be setting your standards too high. For me personally, I am satisfied that this activity was rampant in the region and since the majority of the people were Protestant (an assumption), I am convinced that it included everyone from the traditional Protestant to the occasional minister. I would also suspect that this was a temporary fad where most, if not all, of the participants chastised them own selves for getting caught up in it. I would also agree with you that the more sophisticated preachers, which I think would be a significant majority of them, condemned the practice and wished their members would not pursue it. Just as Joseph gave it up as he matured, so others did the same thing. It was simply a fad that passed through and then forgotten. --^StormRider 21:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I accept your assertion that the majority of treasure hunters in upstate New York during this period were "Protestant" if by Protestant you mean not Catholic or Jewish. I reject the statement if you mean that the treasure hunters were as committed to the religion of the Reformation as say, the average church member in Philadelphia. As a practical matter, it's hard to get beyond opinion here. Too bad the Chases, the Staffords, and Stowell didn't write out their religious views for us to consider. My personal opinion is that even if these folk read the Bible and attended church, they were all effectively as pagan as Hottentots.--John Foxe (talk) 22:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

First Vision in intro

I've squeezed a piped link to First Vision in the fourth paragraph of the intro. What do you think? Its a few words longer, but more strongly suggests Smith's revered status among followers. ...comments? ~BFizz 07:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me. COGDEN 08:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

My only objection is a minor matter of style: one should have a good reason to write about the past in something other than the simple past tense.--John Foxe (talk) 09:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Foxe, your eye for style is irreplaceable. Good catch. ...comments? ~BFizz 17:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I would reject placing the first vision in the leas paragraphs because its overall significance within the LDS Movement did not actually emerge until after Smith died, and hence it played little heed in the events of his life. Routerone (talk) 11:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

But this article isn't just about the facts of his life... unless we have an "Impact of Joseph Smith on the LDS Church" article somewhere, in which case, it is. Um, DO we have an "Impact of Joseph Smith on the LDS Church" article somewhere? Do we need one (for things like this) or can we say what needs to be said here? We can have an "Impact" section here, can't we? Padillah (talk) 12:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

This is why the vision is best mentioned in the fourth paragraph, which is about Smith's religious legacy. I think it fits well there.

As to a new section about Smith's religious impact, I think such a section would be mostly redundant with the "teachings" section that discusses his religious teachings, and the "legacy" section that discusses the various religions that recognize him as their founder. Perhaps we could include a bit more detail about the vision in the "teachings" section, though it's easy to overemphasize the vision way beyond its prominence in Smith's actual teachings. By 1838, the vision had become an important element of the story he told in his own mind about his prophethood, but there is no evidence he thought that the vision was as important as the modern LDS Church and the Community of Christ now consider it to be. In fact, Bushman said that until 1838 Smith considered the first vision mainly in terms of being a private and personal forgiveness of sins, like many other similar theophanies of his era. And even though Smith realized that the vision should become part of the story of his prophethood in 1838, it was not published until 1842, and even then, Smith spoke much more prominently about the priesthood restoration through Elijah, and other angelic restorations, than he did about the first vision. So if we include more detail in the "teachings" section, I think it's prominence should reflect the historical prominence it was given in his actual teachings, rather than the prominence given in the teachings of 20th century authors.

Perhaps there is a way to give it more prominence to the first vision in the "legacy" section than it would have in the "teachings" section, but I can't think of a way to do that without it being awkward. And while we need to summarize his legacy here, his legacy in various churches is more the subject of these other articles, including Latter Day Saint movement and the various denominational articles.

So here's a suggestion: The article could be referred to three times in the article. (1) Currently, it is mentioned in the historical section, but in the context of its very minimal contemporary historical impact. (2) It could be mentioned in the "teachings" section and given the greater but still relatively minor prominence it was given in his actual teachings. (3) If there is some way to include it in the "legacy" section, we could simply mention that the vision has dramatically grown in importance in LDS and CofC theology after Smith's death, and leave it to the sub-articles to explain in detail what that significance is, and how the vision fits into modern theology. COGDEN 22:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Once again, I am finding a lack of fact in the above statements. As a response to COGDEN, let me point out the errors in your last entry. First, where do you get the information that the " vision had become an important element of the story he told in his own mind about his prophethood, but there is no evidence he thought that the vision was as important as the modern LDS Church and the Community of Christ now consider it to be."? Joseph Smith, Jr. was persecuted from the moment he first told a local preacher about the vision until his murder over two decades later. Joseph Smith, Jr. spoke of his vision in the Sacred Grove to many, many people, as it was the beginning of God's renewed revelation to man about His Gospel and His Church which had been lost through a falling away after Christ's apostles were killed. It was NOT simple a personal conversion. It was a commandment he received from God, Himself, to not join any of the Churches on the earth at the time of Joseph's prayer as none of them had the fulness of Christ's Gospel, followed later by other angelic visits, directing him as to how to restore the fulness of Christ's Gospel. Second, while Joseph Smith, Jr.'s vision wasn't officially published before 1842, he did write about it several times in documents and letters. Third, Joseph Smith, Jr. NEVER spoke of the Priesthood being restored through Elijah. The Aaronic (or Levitical) Priesthood was restored through John the Baptist and the Melchizedek Priesthood was restored through Christ's Apostles, Peter, James, and John. Elijah revealed the Priesthood by restoring the blessings of the ordinances of the Temple, which include Baptism for the Dead and the sealing of a husband and wife together for Eternity, thus fulfilling the promise made in Malachi 4:5,6 which states "Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord: And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse." See Doctrine and Covenants Section 2:1-3, Section 27:9, Section 110:13-16, Section 128:16-18, all written by Joseph Smith, Jr. and published as canonized scripture. So, before you diminish the importance of Joseph Smith, Jr.'s First Vision, please discover for yourself the historical facts of its importance, as well as other historical facts related to Joseph Smith, Jr.Mcsand6 (talk) 05:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

There's no evidence beyond Joseph Smith's own testimony that he had a vision in 1820, or that he mentioned it to a local preacher or to anyone else during that decade, or that he was persecuted for discussing it. Belief in the First Vision necessitates a belief in the veracity of Joseph Smith.--John Foxe (talk) 10:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

What you are saying is that first-person testimony has no veracity. Wow! I thought that in a court of law, it was third-person testimony which has no veracity as it is considered heresay. How convenient to simply dismiss that something occurred because the person who experienced it said it occurred. If you would like witnesses to corroborate his testimony, please read "Confirming Witnesses of the First Vision" by Milton V. Backman, Jr. You can find it at lds.org by reading the article in the Jan. 1986 Ensign, pp. 32-37. There, you will find many witnesses. Please don't tell me that this article makes no difference because it was published by members of the Church that Joseph Smith, Jr., himself, restored. When factual information about the Catholic Church is written, the authors don't dismiss information from the Catholic Church itself, they actually go to the SOURCE for that information, namely the Church being written about. Just to quote a few for you, in case you don't want to go to lds.org, here are some quotes from the article. The first is about Orson Pratt's witness: Orson Pratt "published a pamphlet now entitled REMARKABLE VISIONS.” 3 This missionary pamphlet was published in the fall of 1840 and contained the first account of the First Vision to appear in print. 4 It included a description of Joseph Smith’s early visions, from his initial theophany near Palmyra to the early appearances of Moroni and his experience with the three witnesses to the Book of Mormon. Elder Pratt reprinted the work twice in 1841 and again in 1842 (called the third American edition). In the American editions, it was enlarged to include an account of the restoration of the priesthood. A comparison of the pamphlet with Joseph Smith’s historical writings reveals that most major concepts included in the Prophet’s histories (especially the 1838 account) were included in Elder Pratt’s work. Since there are no direct quotations in the Pratt pamphlet, and since the literary style is very different from Joseph’s pre-1840 writings, Orson Pratt undoubtedly based his history on what he had learned from the teachings rather than the writings of Joseph."(Backman) To quote from the pamphlet itself (with the dates of the three separate publications in ()), "“And he was enrapped in a heavenly vision, and saw two glorious personages (1838, 1842) who exactly resembled each other in their features or likeness (1842). He was informed, that his sins were forgiven (1832). He was also informed upon the subjects, which had for some time previously agitated his mind, viz.—that all the religious denominations were believing in incorrect doctrines (1832, 1838, 1842); and, consequently that none of them was acknowledge of God, as his church and kingdom (1832). And he was expressly commanded, to go not after them (1838); and he received a promise that the true doctrine—the fulness of the gospel, should, at some future time, be made known to him (1842); after which, the vision withdrew, leaving his mind in a state of calmness and peace, indescribable(1832).” Orson Hyde became another witness when "in August 1842, he published a missionary pamphlet in Frankfurt, Germany, entitled, A Cry From the Wilderness, A Voice From the Dust of the Earth. 10 In his Cry from the Wilderness, Elder Hyde described Joseph’s search for truth, his introduction to James’s admonition on prayer, his prayer in the woods near his father’s house, the presence of the adversary, and the appearance of light following the darkness. While describing Joseph’s vision, Elder Hyde wrote that Joseph saw two glorious personages who resembled each other in stature and likeness. They informed him that he should not join any religious party, for they had all erred concerning doctrine, and that none of them was considered by God to be his church and kingdom. He was directed to wait until a later date when the true doctrine of Christ and the fulness of the gospel would be revealed to him. After the vision closed, Elder Hyde concluded, Joseph’s soul was filled with peace and calmness." (Backman) "John Taylor not only declared that he personally learned from Joseph Smith the basic truths unfolded during the First Vision, but proclaimed that Joseph Smith’s 1838 history discussing events preceding the organization of the Church was accurate." (Backman)Mcsand6 (talk) 16:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:TLDR. First off, John Foxe, we need to remember to take it easy on Mcsand6. You and I both know we could get dangerously close to trolling if we are not careful. Second, Mcsand6 wikipedia is not a forum for proselytizing so could you try a little harder to keep on track with the discussion? Thanks. Third, physical evidence and empirical proof (facts based in reality and science) trump eyewitness testimony in a court of law. First person testimony is subject to the character of the witness and several times has been turned around to bite the party that depended on it (by the way, it's hearsay, and it means people that didn't actually see the event, only heard about it. Heresy is speaking ill of a deity. ). What we can use are real sources that come from first-hand witnesses to the events as they unfolded. You bring up a good point that we must be diligent about speculation, even speculation by the sources we are citing. So, do you have a source that refutes the claims of magic made by Lucy Mack Smith? Do you have any sources that would be closer to the family or to Joseph Smith Jr.? Padillah (talk) 16:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

"First off, John Foxe, we need to remember to take it easy on Mcsand6. You and I both know we could get dangerously close to trolling if we are not careful" Nothing John Foxe has said here has been even remotely close to 'trolling', and I do not like that implication being mentioned. Mcsand has to learn what is and what isn't proper; it is not any other editor's 'job' to teach him. Duke53 | ^Talk 17:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

You don't like that I'm trying to keep the conversation on track? How odd. I never said he was trolling, my comment was fueled more by Mcand6's near tirades than anything John Foxe has ever done. It takes very little to look at the entries above and realize how easily a conversation like this, with a person that is this obviously vehement in their beliefs, can go wrong. If John Foxe is a steadfast editor that never waivers in the conversation then "good". You'll also notice I lumped myself in with him, I am not above reproach and could easily stray into areas that would be very disagreeable to all involved. And finally, communication is a two-way street. Mcsand6 needs to learn about Wikipedia and what qualifies as Reliable Source and so forth but there are good ways to do that and bad ways to do that. I was simply getting in front of people on a religiously charged talk page that the bad ways could end with someone getting blocked. The only reason it was directed at John was he was the one that responded. Padillah (talk) 17:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

"You don't like that I'm trying to keep the conversation on track." No, not at all; what's odder yet is that you'd read that into my statement. What I don't like is you raising the 'spectre' of trolling here. Duke53 | ^Talk 21:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

"Mcsand6 needs to learn about Wikipedia and what qualifies as Reliable Source and so forth ..." I agree, but why not just come right out and tell him that ? He will either learn or he won't learn ... that is the way it works here. Duke53 | ^Talk 21:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Your statements regarding speculation are very interesting since all of the above comments and quotes I have read in this discussion seem to be based on speculation. You say that we can use first-hand witnesses, yet it's been discussed above that we can't rely on Joseph's first-hand witness of his vision as he is the only witness. I know that witnesses are subject to their character, so would you like character witnesses for the witnesses I cited in my above entry? I haven't seen, read, or heard of any character assassinations on Orson Pratt, Orson Hyde, or John Taylor. Do you have any evidence of such? Also, I'm not proselytizing, I am simply quoting witnesses to refute that Joseph Smith, Jr. didn't see what he said he saw. I don't apologize that the men of that day used religious terms to describe a religious experience, thus it shows up when I quote them. I'm not trying to proselytize you, just help you understand the facts of the experience which was talked about and written about by many people during the course of Joseph Smith, Jr.'s life who left written records of the evidence. Remember that physical evidence and empirical proof have never been the highest source of authority in religious matters, and Joseph Smith Jr.'s experience was a religious matter. In fact, physical evidence and empirical proof are low on the totem pole in relation to how the truth speaks to one's heart. Besides, how would a person who has an experience like Joseph Smith, Jr.'s vision, provide physical evidence and empirical proof of that experience? Mcsand6 (talk) 17:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree to the extent that we can't be re-debating the fundamentals of Wikipedia policy here. We're stuck with theneutrality policy. Nothing we do here is going to change that. Thus, all this religious argumentation is beside the point. This being an encyclopedia, we have to rely on the experts in the field to tell us what the consensus is, what is the minority view, and what is fringe theory. Those experts, both Mormons and non-Mormons, all say that the First Vision had relatively little significance in Mormon theology until the late 1800s, and was essentially unknown prior to 1842. We're stuck with that consensus. I'm not arguing that the First Vision has not retroactively blossomed into the single most important event in human history other than the resurrection of Jesus. But as of 1844, the vision did not have that status within Mormonism.

Actually, as of 1844, Mormons probably thought that the visions of God, Jesus, Elijah, and all the other prophets before Smith and Cowdery in the Kirtland temple were the most important visions. As of 1832, the most significant vision was the vision of Smith and Rigdon of the three degrees of glory, which was so important and singular that they called it "the Vision". Everybody knew about "the Vision", but only a handful of Mormons, at most, knew about the First Vision. Even Smith himself considered the First Vision mainly as a personal conversion and forgiveness of sins, and an answer to a prayer that confirmed his skepticism towards organized religion. It wasn't until 1838 that he felt the need to frame the vision in a way that would enhance his standing as a prophet (a standing that had been weakened by the Kirtland financial crisis). But then he waited four more years to publish it. COGDEN 18:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

So one of the reasons that Wikipedia prefers secondary sources over primary sources is that the primary sources are so close the event. For instance, if the founder of a company writes a history of the company, they are doing a few things. First, there's a degree of revisionism- looking back and remembering things as you'd like them to be. Second, events that put the company in a poor light will be glossed over, spun, or completely ignored. This can happen if a personal critic of the company writes about it- small events will be magnified if they have an axe to grind.

So, that's the reason that secondary sources are giving extra weight on Wikipedia. Since you are new, let us know if you have questions about the policies. I'd suggest starting at Wikipedia's 5 pillars. Cheers, tedder (talk) 18:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with your statement that "only a handful of Mormons, at most, knew about the First Vision". The quotes I stated from 3 contemporaries of Joseph Smith, Jr. indicate otherwise. I can quote journal entries of people, including my ancestors, who wrote about the First Vision. It was not a light experience in that it totally changed the concept of the nature of God that was prevalent at the time, as well as re-opening a communication between God and His prophets that had been closed for a long time. The nature of God that was revealed through Joseph's experience was a major topic of discussion from the early beginnings of the Church. I refer you back to the article in the 1986 Ensign for more quotes regarding that fact. As for Wikipedia's policies, I admit that I haven't read them and that I am a "newbie", however, I do know what establishes fact and what it only opinion. I find it ironic that everyone keeps changing their reasons for discounting my explanations from it not being from a reliable witness to it not being reliable because it's from a primary source. If that is the case, does that mean that we cannot quote Abraham Lincoln's speeches or writings to establish facts about his life, his campaigns, and his Presidency? Mcsand6 (talk) 19:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

In short, yes. There are things that are discounted or deprecated in other articles due to the primary source being the only source (Bruce Lee's feelings on the treatment of Chinese-Americans comes to mind). But you must also concede that it's much easier to determine that Theodore Roosevelt hated the nickname "Teddy" than whether a person has had a prophetic vision. I, for one, am stuck in a situation where, as much as I know about my father, I can't add any of it to the article about him because I can't reference any of it. It's annoying but it's meant to keep out wild accusations and contrary information. Think of it this way, people that want to disparage Joseph Smith are held to the same standard, in hopes that the article is treated fairly and comes across balanced. Padillah (talk) 19:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Mcsand6, there's nothing inherently wrong with using primary sources for what they are. We can, for example, use Smith's accounts of the First Vision as the best sources for what Smith said happened, but in weighing them against each other, or in weighing their contemporary historical importance or impact, we have to rely on secondary sources. COGDEN 23:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Which is to say that at Wikipedia, when primary sources are in conflict with secondary sources, secondary are trump. So here, at any rate, Bushman, Brodie, and Quinn are always preferred to Joseph Smith.--John Foxe (talk) 00:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

EY summary condensation

I feel that the level of detail regarding (1) treasure hunting and (2) the angel Moroni/golden plates can be condensed. Those are the main topics of the section, so condensing of each should be roughly proportional, lest we fail at WP:UNDUE. This is trickier and I'll have to think a bit longer before I choose examples and make specific proposals, though I welcome yours. ...comments? ~BFizz 20:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

1. the vision story gained increasing theological importance within the Latter Day Saint movement beginning roughly a half century later. - Detail "roughly a half century later" needed here? ...comments? ~BFizz 21:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

   Proposal (retracted): remove "beginning roughly a half century later", leave this detail for sub-articles. ...comments? ~BFizz 21:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

   (discuss here)

   It's important that adequate notice be given that the First Vision story did not become well-known until long after Smith's death, so removing this phrase would be POV.

   Fair enough. Any other rewording would be less accurate and just as long. ...comments? ~BFizz 02:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

   I have no problem just deleting that entire last sentence of the paragraph. Instead, maybe we change the preceding sentence to say: "Smith later recalled that he had his own first vision in 1820, in which God told him his sins were forgiven and that all churches were false." COGDEN 19:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

   I made a change along the lines I suggested above. I don't think the added detail about the historiography of the First Vision is crucial for the main flow of text, but is an important point for the footnotes. I made it clear that the vision was described in later reminiscences. COGDEN 19:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

2. Meanwhile, Smith continued to travel western New York and Pennsylvania as a treasure hunter, for which occupation he was tried in 1826 as a "disorderly person". - No follow up to 'tried as disorderly', and no clear link of why treasure hunting is related to him being disorderly, make this sentence awkward. ...comments? ~BFizz 21:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

   Proposal (adjusted): remove "for which...disorderly person". Leave detail for sub-article. ...comments? ~BFizz 21:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

   Proposal: (pending...propose and sign here)

   (discuss here)

   It's important that the reader be made aware that Smith's treasure hunting was illegal in this time and place. Once again, removal of this phrase would be POV.--John Foxe (talk) 21:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

   Is there a way we can reword the sentence to make clear that "treasure hunting was illegal in [that] time and place", and also give closure as to the verdict of that trial? ...comments? ~BFizz 02:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

   What if we just deleted "as a 'disorderly person'"? That still makes it clear that he was tried for his profession. It's not so much that treasure hunting itself was illegal. For example, if some established, respected farmer or pastor went out on a treasure quest or started skrying, they probably wouldn't have been considered a "disorderly person". The crime was designed mainly to keep the prostitutes, beggars, gypsies, jugglers, magicians, fortune tellers, migrant peddlers, the unemployed, and other such "disorderly" people out of respectable towns. But we probably don't need to go into the exact legal charge in this article. COGDEN 19:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

   I rewrote the sentence but have no strong emotional attachment to the change.--John Foxe (talk) 21:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

   I don't think the way it stands now is quite accurate. Claiming magical powers in itself was not illegal under New York law. Rather, vagrancy and being a "disorderly person" was illegal. These laws were outlawed a class of people (gypsies, prostitutes, transients, jugglers, etc.), rather than conduct. Smith was tried because he was making a living off of scrying and had no other visible means of employment, not because of the scrying itself. COGDEN 18:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

   Bushman says,"New York law specified that anyone pretending to have skill in discovering lost goods should be judged a disorderly person....Presumably Bridgeman believed that Joseph was trying to cheat the old man [Stowell] by claiming magical powers." (52)--John Foxe (talk) 20:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

   I stand corrected. Looking at the New York statute, it did have a specific provision for "[a]ll persons pretending to tell...where lost or stolen goods may be found." This is at Revised Statutes, vol. 1, p. 638, section 1. COGDEN 21:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

   Thanks. I've added the citation to the footnotes. (It's been a long while since I've done legal citations, so maybe you can tweak it.)--John Foxe (talk) 21:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Request for Indefinite semi-protection

I was trying to be Bold and have put in for a request for Indefinite semi-protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, for anyone who wants to chime in. I constantly see reverts made due to vandalism. My resoning is that a very quick review of the edit history shows that in the last two months this article has been vandalized 16 times. All 16 of these were from anonymous (IP addresses) or non-autoconfirmed users. In the last 2000 edits the words "revert vandalism" was listed in the edit summary 84 times. This shows a clear pattern of “heavy sustained vandalism”, the given reason why a page should be Semi-protected, per WP:SILVERLOCK. A perfect example as why this page needs indefinite semi-protection is given at WP:NO-PREEMPT. It says “Semi-protection is used for articles, such as Jesus, that have a pattern of heavy sustained vandalism.” Not that I am trying to compare Joseph Smith to Jesus, I am only comparing there Wikipages. The Jesus page it about a religious figure, who some find controversial, whose page is heavily vandalized. This is a perfect example of the Joseph Smith page, a controversial religious figure whose page is heavily vandalized. This page need to be protected against anonymous and non-autoconfirmed users.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 14:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Also as well as vandalism, there seems to be a persistant trend amongst new users and anoymous users in regards to putting blatant POV in this article, these being attempts to change the article into a full Mormon doctrinal POV, or attempting to lampoon Smith as a "fraud" in direct terms. This also contributes to the cause of indefinate semi-protections on articles such as this one. So I would support this for the means of stability so that the content can be controlled. Routerone (talk) 15:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

It's on over 500 editors' watchlists, so you may find it gets turned down because of that. 84 vandalism reverts out of 2000 isn't a very high level of vandalism, but a lot of the other reverts will be due to vandalism but not have the word in the edit summary. I've been reverting vandalism with rollback which doesn't show as vandalism. But there's no voting involved, not even !votes, it will just be up to an Admin who reads the RPP page to decide. Dougweller (talk) 15:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd be shocked if it was protected, even temporarily, let alone indef. "Heavy sustained vandalism" means "higher than seen on today's featured article", which is usually in the range of 20-50 per day. WP:ROUGH is typically used as a guideline. tedder (talk) 16:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Tedder may be right that it gets turned down, but I think it's worth a try. User:Routerone and User:Dougweller I would suggest that you go to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection and add your comments.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 16:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I expanded my reasoning per your inputs. I noticed however that it was skipped over in the list. Pages added after my request were approved or disapproved. I think it says something that it wasn't outright denied. It’s at least being thought about.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 17:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Skipping usually means WP:TLDR: it'll get processed. They are never skipped completely. (I'd know- I've processed plenty of those requests) tedder (talk) 17:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, again, at least it wasn't outright denied. I still think it's worth a shot. I'm sure there are more people then myself that are tired of seeing this page Vandalized and POV edited all the time.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 18:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

O'well got it for a week based on lack of history.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 21:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Enjoy the week's vacation. I think that a case for greater protection might be made on the basis that almost all of the vandalism here comes from unregistered users, that unregistered users make few contributions, and that this page has more than 5% vandalism.--John Foxe (talk) 22:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't it nice to have a week in which the article was restricted to adults?--John Foxe (talk) 10:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Based on the news in the media about Wikipedia (being charged with posting child pornography) I couldn't not comment. I have been saying all along the problem in this article, as with Wikipedia in general, is the lack of substantial oversight. Because Wikimedia/Wikipedia exist not to answer to readership but to contributors, there appear some odd group dynamics which allow for extremist groups and perspectives to be maintained. It is exactly this problem which has likely led this article to be so negative and disrespectful in tone. I have recently visited the site on Jehovah's Witnesses (much greater sensitivity) and the site on Masons (maintained primarily by active Masons who are not accused of their POV). I had anticipated a similar anti group dynamic, but it wasn't there. It seems that this one is being "protected" by a more volatile group dynamic. As I asked Tedder, find me a more insensitive article and I'll go there to contribute. He still hasn't come up with one. Now I'm glad not to contribute and be supporting an organization involved with filth. Perhaps the rest of you might consider your participation in Wikipedia until they have restored their dignity, if that will even be possible.

Canadiandy1 (talk) 14:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

Regarding monuments and memorials

The List of monuments and memorials of Joseph Smith, Jr. was proposed for deletion, with a consensus to merge it back into this article. I've temporarily userfied the content, so we need not rush to include it. Just something to be aware of. ...comments? ~BFizz 21:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Several of us just agreed a few weeks ago that this list didn't really belong in the Joseph Smith article (which is why the separate list article was created). I didn't notice the proposal in time, but I would have been okay with deleting, but not merging. I don't interpret the discussion in the request for deletion to reflect a consensus to merge here. The only consensus I see is to delete the List of monuments and memorials of Joseph Smith, Jr. article (which I would not oppose). No consensus was reached on what to do with the content. COGDEN 23:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The consensus to merge is here. To oppose or change that, it'll need to go to Wikipedia:Deletion review. tedder (talk) 23:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

If you read the discussion carefully, there's no consensus to merge. Of the six opinions expressed, only three express an opinion to merge. The other three only express support for deletion. Arbitrarily0 misread the discussion. In any event, the AfD page is the place to discuss deletions, not mergers--mergers are normally discussed on the talk pages. Merger review requires more thought and discussion than simple deletion. COGDEN 08:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The closing admin read the discussion and felt consensus was with 'merge'. To overturn that, it goes to delrev, not discussed here. Merges are a very common outcome of AFD, though you are right, they are probably best discussed on talk pages. tedder (talk) 12:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

In any event, I foresaw that we wouldn't be quick to pull the material back into this article, which is why I userfied it, for purposes of allowing the article's deletion, and a delayed 'merge' of the content. ...comments? ~BFizz 15:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the nature of AfDs. They do not result in binding votes to merge articles. Admins have special deletion powers and can therefore take administrative action such as deletion as part of the AfD process, but cannot simply "decree" a merger of two articles. Unlike the Arbitration Committee, the decision of an admin does not have the force of law beyond their limited special powers, and unless Arbitrarily0 wants to do the merge himself, the AfD has no effect on this article except as an ongoing discussion to establish consensus. As of right now, there's no justification to re-merge this material back into the article, given that there was a consensus to delete this material from this article, and nobody has shown that the consensus has changed, AfD result notwithstanding. COGDEN 21:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

New "impact" section

I've added a new "impact" subsection in the "legacy" section. I think this was missing from the article. It covers what Smith "means" to those that came after him. Any comments? COGDEN 04:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Creating that section was a good idea. I like it.--John Foxe (talk) 10:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Great job, COgden. The new section very nicely explains his revered position among his followers without imposing that view on the reader. ...comments? ~BFizz 02:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Regarding peer review and GA status

A while ago I stated that I intended to review each section of this article, in preparation for a GA nomination on June 1. However, that pesky Real Life (tm) distracted me from this goal and I've been letting it slide. Rather than attempt to conduct the in-depth review that I intended, I'll simply lean on Finetooth's fantastic peer review of the article. He makes several sound suggestions; I'm not entirely sure if anyone has taken action on them. In any event, I take heart in Finetooth's statement: "I think this article is not far from being ready for FAC".

One thing that should probably wait until later is the matter of notes. Finetooth mentions that our note system could be improved to be more like the article Voyage of the Karluk. I agree that we should gut and revamp our notes system for a cleaner presentation, but it's something that I, for one, am going to leave for later.

I plan to take this week to assure that most of Finetooth's other suggestions are enacted, and will nominate the article for GA status next week. I would much appreciate any help you wish to offer (and do appreciate the hard work that many of you, especially John Foxe and COgden, have put into this article). ...comments? ~BFizz 03:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't say I'm a big fan of the dual-footnote scheme of Voyage of the Karluk. Having two sets of numerical footnotes seems to just add confusion and complexity, and I've never see such a system in an academic work. Plus, I don't see any principled way to distinguish between "interesting" footnotes and "ordinary" footnotes. COGDEN 04:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with COGDEN regarding the note system. My feeling is that if "the notes are ...apt to be ignored by readers," that's just fine. If information is important to understanding, it should be in the text; footnotes are for those especially interested in some particular area. I would also like to thank Finetooth for catching those little gremlins; he has certainly chosen an appropriate screen name.--John Foxe (talk) 10:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Views and teachings intro?

The subsections of the 'Distinctive views and teachings' section do a good job of illustrating each particular point. However, I feel that we should also include a summary paragraph for the section that touches on the bigger picture, like the first and last paragraphs of the lede of Teachings of Joseph Smith, Jr. What do you (all) think? ...comments? ~BFizz 05:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

"Smith strongly favored U.S. constitutional rights"

Finetooth noted that we don't have a source for the paragraph in the Teachings section that starts with "Smith strongly favored U.S. constitutional rights". COgden, have you got anything for this? ...comments? ~BFizz 05:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I've added some citations from Bushman—probably not the best source for this topic but good enough to silence potential critics.--John Foxe (talk) 11:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. ...comments? ~BFizz 22:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Alt text

I've gone through and given all of the images alt text (prompted by Finetooth's suggestion). Review the diffs at your leisure and make sure they conform with your understanding of WP:ALT. Thanks. ...comments? ~BFizz 22:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. A good reminder of how precious eyesight is.--John Foxe (talk) 11:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

POV Article

I started an exercise to find out about the neutrality of this article, or lack thereof. I went through about the first 74 references and notes. In my reckoning, there were 17 positive statements referenced or noted, 30 neutral, and 27 negative ones. This is evidence to me that the article, particularly the part I went through, is not NPOV. I read a lot more than that, and what I read has a negative tone. There are plenty of people, like me, that believe that Joseph Smith was a man of good character and a prophet of God. That is not adequately represented in contrast to the people who believe he was a fraud and not a good man. I wish people would not publish lies and focus on the negative aspects of Joseph Smith's life to put him in a bad light. --96.31.118.209 (talk) 04:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia is supposed to reflect the balance of what reliable sources say about a particular subject, and since in this case (as generally with religious subjects) the sources themselves lean more skeptical/critical than apologetic, those numbers don't sound particularly unreasonable to me. I'm not saying there are no POV problems, but the overall picture you paint doesn't greatly alarm me (and I am LDS, for what it's worth). But I do compliment you on the effort and care spent in evaluating so many references; that's a lot of work to do and it's good for articles to have their references checked out once in a while. alanyst ^/talk/ 05:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Ditto what analyst said. I disagree with your conclusion, which is based on fuzzy logic, but reviewing the references is definitely a good thing. If you have any specific suggestions for how to make the article more neutral, they are always welcome. In any event, I'm about to nominate this for Good Article Review. Hopefully this process will get more eyeballs on the article to address the neutrality issue. ...comments? ~BFizz 22:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Preparing for WP:GAN

I'm going to put this article up at WP:Good article nominations tomorrow, if no one has any objections. I invite you to wrap up any major tweaking by that time. If there is a significant chunk of work you would like to do before the nomination, just let me know and we can postpone the nomination a few days. ...comments? ~BFizz 22:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The many citations put in the middle of sentences instead of the end make the text cluttered and difficult to read. Hekerui (talk) 06:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not arguing with the readability issue, but WP:Citing sources#How to present citations suggests "placing [citations] in a footnote, with a link following the assertion (whether a clause, sentence, paragraph, etc.) that supports it." One benefit of this is that you know exactly what proposition is being supported, whereas if all citations are held until the end of the sentence and then combined into a single footnote, there might be some ambiguity. COGDEN 16:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Cleaning up unused references

There are a number of references that are never actually cited in the article. I think we should delete these. For example, we never cite Andrus (1973), Bennett (1842), Berge (1985), etc. In some cases, a reference is cited only once, like Booth (1831). In such cases, I think we might want to consider moving the citation to the single footnote where they are referenced. My view is that the "References" section should contain only sources that are cited multiple times in the article. We also ought to make sure everything we cite in the footnotes is either cited in full in the footnote or included in the "References" section. COGDEN 00:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with removing unused references, though perhaps we should keep them around on the talk page somewhere, or consider finding suitable citations from them. I'm not sure where I stand on the "references" section only having sources that are cited multiple times; I'm not sold on the idea, but I don't oppose it. General reference clean-up is definitely something that should be done. ...comments? ~BFizz 02:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

If we want to consistently list all cited references in the "References" section, including one-off citations, I'd be okay with that too, as long as it's done consistently. Most of the orphan references are primary sources that were used in a prior version, but were replaced with broader statements from secondary sources such as Bushman and Brodie. The primary sources can still be cited in the more detailed sub-articles. I maintain a list of Mormon studies citations for use in various articles, which includes all of these references, so if down the road we want to add them back or add them to sub-articles, we could just draw from that list so we don't have to re-do the work. Or if there is a particular source that is not cited but should be, we could discuss it here now. COGDEN 19:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I have removed a number of references that are not cited in the text. They are listed below:

• Anderson, Richard Lloyd (1969), "Circumstantial Confirmation Of the first Vision Through Reminiscences" (PDF), BYU Studies, 9 (3): 373–404.
• Andrus, Hyrum Leslie (1973), Doctrines of the Kingdom, Salt lake City, UT: Bookcraft, republished as Andrus, Hyrum L. (1999), Doctrines of the Kingdom: Volume III from the Series Foundations of the Millennial Kingdom of Christ, Salt lake City: Deseret Book, ISBN 1573454621.
• Bennett, John C. (1842), The History of the Saints; or, an Exposé of Joe Smith and Mormonism, Boston: Leland & Whiting.
• Berge, Dale L. (August 1985), "Archaeological Work at the Smith Log House", Ensign, 15 (8): 24.
• Bidamon, Emma Smith (March 27, 1876), "Letter to Emma S. Pilgrim", in Vogel, Dan (ed.), Early Mormon Documents, vol. 1, Signature Books, ISBN 1-56085-072-8 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |publication-year= ignored (help).
• Clark, Jerome Leslie (1968), 1844: Religious Movements, vol. 1, Nashville, TN: Southern Publishing Association, p. 157.
• Cobb, James T. (June 1, 1881), "The Hill Cumorah, And The Book Of Mormon. The Smith Family, Cowdery, Harris, and Other Old Neighbors—What They Know", The Saints' Herald, 28 (11): 167.
• Cowdery, Oliver (1834), "Letter [I]", Latter Day Saints' Messenger and Advocate, 1 (1): 13–16.
• Cowdery, Oliver (1835), "Letter VIII", Latter Day Saints' Messenger and Advocate, 2 (1): 195–202.
• Hitchens, Christopher (2007), god is not Great, New York: Twelve.
• Johnson, Luke (1864), "History of Luke Johnson, by Himself", The Latter Day Saints' Millennial Star, 26 (53): 834–36.
• Krakauer, Jon (2003), Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith, New York: Doubleday, ISBN 0-385-50951-0.
• Larson, Charles M. (1985), By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Institute of Religious Research, ISBN 0962096326.
• La Rue, William Earl (1919), The Foundations of Mormonism: A Study of the Fundamental Facts in the History and Doctrines of the Mormons from Original Sources, New York: Fleming H. Revell Company.
• McKiernan, F. Mark (1971), The Voice of One crying in the Wilderness: Sidney Rigdon, Religious Reformer, 1793–1876, Lawrense, KS, Corondao Press.
• Porter, Larry C. (1969), "Reverend George Lane—Good 'Gifts', Much 'Grace', and Marked 'Usefulness'" (PDF), BYU Studies, 9 (3): 321–40.
• Porter, Larry C. (1971), A Study of the Origins of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the States of New York and Pennsylvania, 1816–1831, Brigham Young University library (Ph.D dissertation){{citation}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link).
• Remy, Jules; Brenchley, Julius Lucius (1861), A Journey to Great-Salt-Lake City, vol. 2, London: W. Jeffs.
• Roberts, B. H., ed. (1908), History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, vol. 4, Salt Lake City: Deseret News.
• Roberts, B. H., ed. (1932), History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, vol. 7, Salt Lake City: Deseret News.
• Sillito, John R.; Staker, Susan (2002), Mormon Mavericks: Essays on Dissenters, Signature Books, ISBN 1560851546 {{citation}}: More than one of |author= and |last1= specified (help).
• Smith, Andrew F. (1971), The Saintly Scoundrel: The Life and Times of Dr. John Cook Bennett, Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
• Smith, Emma (1879), Last Testimony of Emma Smith: Q&A between Emma and Joseph Smith III, vol. 26, The Saints' Herald.
• Smith, Joseph, Jr. (April 1838), History of the Church{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link), copied to Smith, Joseph, Jr.; Mulholland, James; Thompson, Robert B.; Phelps, William W.; Richards, Willard (1839–1843), "History of the Church, Ms. A–1", in Jessee, Dean C (ed.), Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book (published 2002), ISBN 1-57345-787-6{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link).
• Smith, Joseph Fielding (1949), Church History and Modern Revelation, vol. 4, Deseret.
• Smith, William (1883), William Smith on Mormonism: A True Account of the Origin of the Book of Mormon, Lamoni, Iowa: RLDS Church.
• Stevenson, Edward (1882), "One of the Three Witnesses: Incidents in the Life of Martin Harris", The Latter Day Saints' Millenial Star, 44: 78–79, 86–87.
• Van Wagoner, Richard S. (1986), "Sarah Pratt: The Shaping of an Apostate", Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, 19 (2): 79.
• Van Wagoner, Richard S. (1994), Sidney Rigdon: A Portrait of Religious Excess, Salt Lake City: Signature Books.
• Whitmer, David (1887), An Address to All Believers in Christ By A Witness to the Divine Authenticity of the Book of Mormon, Richmond, Missouri: David Whitmer.
• Wymetal, Wilhelm Ritter von (1886), Joseph Smith, the Prophet, His Family, and His Friends: A Study Based on Facts and Documents, Salt Lake City, UT: Tribune Printing and Publishing Company, pp. 60–61.

COGDEN 22:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your excellent work, COgden. ...comments? ~BFizz 22:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Bravo. I would not have guessed there were so many.--John Foxe (talk) 00:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Good article criteria - summary style

Criteria 3 (b) of the Good article criteria is: "it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)." Is there a general article about Joseph Smith, Jr that the general reader could read that does not have so much detail as this one does? Regards, Xtzou (Talk) 19:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia's most general article about Joseph Smith. I think the key word in "unnecessary detail" is unnecessary. The "prose size" of this article is presently 46 kB, which is on the longer side of featured articles, but not unheard of. (See WP:SIZERULE.) Smith's life happens to have been be a lot fuller, more controversial, and better documented and commented about at all periods, than most public figures. There's really not a lot of fluff here. But I and others have been trying for several months to prune, simplify, and generalize the article as much as possible, but I think we're now pretty close to being about as minimal an article as possible that still covers Smith comprehensively. I'm sure there are still areas we can streamline, however, but getting to 40 kB would probably require the amputation of some of the article's major limbs and organs. If you have any thoughts or suggestions for further streamlining, I'd be interested in your perspective. COGDEN 00:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

This article has way too much detail for a GA. There should not be a need for 425 footnotes, many of them going into excruciating detail about obscure issues that the general reader cannot understand, and will not be interested in. If they are interested, they can read the daughter articles to get the details. This is my opinion. Xtzou (Talk) 12:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm reminded of Amadeus:

EMPEROR: Well, I mean occasionally it seems to have, how shall one say? [he stops in difficulty; turning to Orsini-Rosenberg] How shall one say, Director?

ORSINI-ROSENBERG: Too many notes, Your Majesty?

EMPEROR: Exactly. Very well put. Too many notes.

MOZART: I don't understand. There are just as many notes, Majesty, as are required. Neither more nor less.

EMPEROR: My dear fellow, there are in fact only so many notes the ear can hear in the course of an evening. I think I'm right in saying that, aren't I, Court Composer?

SALIERI: Yes! yes! er, on the whole, yes, Majesty.

MOZART: But this is absurd!

EMPEROR: My dear, young man, don't take it too hard. Your work is ingenious. It's quality work. And there are simply too many notes, that's all. Cut a few and it will be perfect.

MOZART: Which few did you have in mind, Majesty?

EMPEROR: Well. There it is.

John Foxe (talk) 17:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

• What is the point of a summary article if it is not to surmount this type of over detailed presentation that makes the article inaccessible to the general reader. I cannot even get through the lead, except by ignoring all the wikilinks and footnotes. Xtzou (Talk) 18:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

There's only one footnote in the lead—much fought over, I should add. Why don't you try to eliminate some links and see if anyone has a problem with that? I certainly wouldn't.--John Foxe (talk) 23:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I did eliminate a bunch to common words, per WP:Overlinking, but most of the links in the lead are Easter egg links that lead to a specifically Mormon topic. Should I eliminate those? Like the ones for a pair, golden plates, seer stones and angel, for example (to take some from the first para)? All the remaining links are like that. Xtzou (Talk) 23:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of Easter egg links, so most of those must be COGDEN's. Let's see what he thinks. My own feeling is that if those words are linked in the body of the article, there's no reason for them to be linked in the lead.--John Foxe (talk) 23:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what an Easter egg link is. If it means a piped link, then I don't think there's any guideline disfavoring them. If there is, I'd like to know. In general, I favor links whenever (1) the reader may not naturally know what the term means, or (2) when the link would direct the reader to further information in the same context of the article. I agree there are probably too many links, mostly because of redundancy. I wouldn't, however, want to eliminate a link to a relevant article containing information that might help the reader understand the context. For example, golden plates, seer stone (Latter Day Saints), Urim and Thummim (Latter Day Saints), etc.

As to too many footnotes, I don't see that as a problem. The average reader ignores the footnotes, as they should. Footnotes and citations are only for the advanced or academic reader that want to check the sources, and there is no such thing as over-citation. Same with any other material in the footnotes. COGDEN 01:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Policy: WP:EGG. Piped links can be sketchy at times, I try to avoid them usually, though they certainly have their place. Typically, if it doesn't link to the word in blue (like angel), then I try to include the article (e.g. an angel) to make the target more apparent, though admittedly not explicit. I am personally a wikilink-lover; I will cram them in all over the place if you don't hold me back. So if you expect someone to reduce the link density, pick any of the other wonderful wikipedians to do the job. ;) ...comments? ~BFizz 07:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I will support any improvements in conformance with the spirit of the guideline. COGDEN 03:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I've made a few changes to the wikilinks in the lede to make them more closely conform to WP policy as I understand it (and to my own preference). Does anyone oppose to saying in the lede "he founded the Church of Christ" as opposed to "he founded a church"? ...comments? ~BFizz 05:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Looks good to me.

It's no big deal, but I'm not sure why "Church of Christ" has to be in the lede. Those unfamiliar with LDS history will be baffled. It might even encourage the unaware to correct the "error." If it were my call, I'd go with the unlinked word "church."--John Foxe (talk) 13:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The important point for the intro is that he founded a church. Its (now obsolete) name is the type of more detailed information that can appear in the main body. COGDEN 17:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Especially since the church name and church successors is a large topic of debate, best to just say "a church" and leave the details to the article proper. tedder (talk) 17:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

1826 conviction for fraud in Bainbridge NY missing?

Don't know if this has been discussed before as I am new to the article. On a quick read I failed to see it mentioned in the article, or in the Talk archives. Smith was convicted in Bainbridge in 1826, (also referenced in the book No Man Knows by History by Fawn M. Brodie)

STATE OF NEW YORK v. JOSEPH SMITH. Warrant issued upon written complaint upon oath of Peter G. Bridgeman, who informed that one Joseph Smith of Bainbridge was a disorderly person and an imposter. Prisoner brought before Court March 20, 1826...

Shouldn't this be mentioned? Or am I missing something? -- Alexf^(talk) 20:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

See the more detailed Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr. article. Alanraywiki (talk) 23:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this 1826 trial is already mentioned in the article, in the "early years" section. COGDEN 03:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Some Minor adjustments

I've just made, [2]. Please ignore the other two edits prior to that, they were in error and I reverted in such.

Firstly, I removed the part about Oliver Cowdery's profession, because as stated above in the GA points we do have the problem of excessive detail. Stating he was a "teacher and a dowser" in my opinion, exists simply as a piece of irrelevant spin to tune in the article in and emphasise opinion + doubt about his character and Joseph Smith's claims. We dont need nor want this type of thing in the article, so I removed it. Because all that should be stated is "Joseph Smith met Oliver Cowdery and began re-translating". That is th established fact, and adding anything on to that is simply spinning it to generate an impression.

Secondly, I got shot of this. "to ensure that the lost pages could not later be found and compared to the re-translation.". If anything, that again is excessive detail. But my most critical point is, it's synthesis and at worst original research. How? as the fact is stated, and then whoever wrote this seems to have added it in as a self drawn opinion and conclusion from the information stated source. There is no direct evidence to the statement I removed here other than individualistic judgement rendered by self opinion and viewpoint. Hence, the fact is stated on the opinion via a viewpoint, it is incompatible with the article. If this is to be a GA (and I will not oppose the cause on bitterness, which I made the mistake of above; rather I'd be more willing to work on it as long as the article merits it), this kind of unnecessary self drawn commentary ought to be avoided, and believe me the article is rife with it. Routerone (talk) 16:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

While I appreciate the edits, I must say I don't appreciate the lack of AGF you are showing. I've seen more than my share of simple statements get condensed into OR statements like above. And the English language has such nuances that a simple 'a' in the right place (or wrong place as the case may be) can drastically change the meaning of a sentence. Taken together heavily edited articles can get out of hand without any single editor "pushing" anything. Please give others the benefit of the doubt. Padillah (talk) 17:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Because the text of this article has taken so long to work out, a major change should be talked over here first.--John Foxe (talk) 17:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Oliver Cowdery's background is important because his magic world-view is similar to that of Smith. To remove the information that he was a rodsman is the worst sort of POV.--John Foxe (talk) 17:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's what Bushman says about the "lost pages" matter: "In May he received a revelation telling him not to retranslate. Were he to bring out a new translation contradicting the first version, the people who had stolen the manuscript would say that 'he has lied in his words, and that he has no gift,' and claim 'that you have pretended to translate, but that you have contradicted your words.'" (74)--John Foxe (talk) 17:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Not a little over emphatic, are we? "The worst sort of POV", seriously? I would think the worst sort of POV would be "Joseph Smith is a lying curr" or "Joseph Smith was the smartest man to have ever lived"... that sort of thing. Please, let's try to keep the tension out of the discussion. Or, at the very least, keep the name calling under control.

That being said, I can't see how Cowdry's background helps define or explain Smith. I say leave it out. If they met at a diving convention, you'd have a point. But simply being a diviner, as were several hundred other people that had nothing to do with Smith, is not enough for me. Padillah (talk) 17:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. I believe Cowdery's background is important and to remove that information is indeed the worst sort of POV. No uninformed reader coming to the sentence "Joseph Smith is a lying cur" is likely to accept the statement as neutral; but when information important to understanding is deliberately removed to promote a religious dogma, the reader would have no idea that it had been deliberately excluded.--John Foxe (talk) 18:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I tend to agree with the removal of Cowdry's background information. I'm not sure how Cowdry's background is worth having on a page about Smith. It certainly belongs on Cowdry's page, and perhaps on Origin of the Book of Mormon, but not on an introductory page about Smith. tedder (talk) 18:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, Foxe, how is Cowdry's background pivotal to the readers understanding of Joseph Smith? What would the common reader never fully understand without the phrase "... a teacher and dowser"? Or is there something crucial in Cowdry's belief in spiritual rods? You've stated that you think it belongs in the article, I'm asking why? Maybe I just don't see it. Padillah (talk) 18:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Both men had a magical world view, as did Harris and the other Witnesses. That similarity needs to be emphasized because modern readers don't have a clue about the invisible world that surrounded the creation of the LDS Church. Besides Cowdery has to be introduced in some fashion. For instance, in the article we introduce John C. Bennett, M.D., as "the Illinois quartermaster general." Saying Cowdery was a "teacher and dowser" sums him up nicely with as little fuss as possible. Now if we said Cowdery was Joseph Smith's cousin, that would be true in a sense but so misleading as to be POV.--John Foxe (talk) 18:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, the "magical world view" is something harshly exaggerated and manipulated by critics using poor evidence. If you are stating this viewpoint repeatedly throughout the article, then what you are doing is putting in the article in the shoes of the critics viewpoint. There are those who disagree with the magic world viewpoint, and may see it as inapropriate that the article is worded to re-enforce it. As you stated in an early post you made about "sectional" viewpoints, you fail to understand that the magic world viewpoint is sectional to the extent that it is played on, exaggerated and used heavily by critics. You're accepting the critical view as mainstream here, and you've virtually admitted that you're stating the "magic world" viewpoint to potray the message of it in the article. You ought to avoid writing the article to sway a particular point of view, which you have clearly done.

Secondly, the "to ensure that the lost pages could not later be found and compared to the re-translation." ought to remain removed. It is point of view because it is summarising a direct conclusion and there is little direct evidence to support it and in turn it is a user drawn conclusion, therefore it shouldn't be in the article. This is directly what is warned against in WP:SYNTHESIS. I am tired of you reverting all of my changes, it is tiresome, provocative and downright annoying. Routerone (talk) 18:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the "to ensure that the lost pages could not later be found and compared to the re-translation." has no place in Wikipedia without a concrete citation placed firmly in context. This should not need to be discussed. The "Magical World View" shouldn't hinge on off-hand remarks made while introducing actors. Using it for that purpose almost seems sneaky to me. If we are going to include a point of view we should make it blatant and egregious, not something the reader should have to "read into". Padillah (talk) 19:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Smith's magical world view is not controversial among scholars and is accepted by both LDS and non-LDS historians.

If you want to credit the "lost pages" business to Bushman or even quote him, that's fine. It's just a footnote.--John Foxe (talk) 19:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't mean to say that Smith's world view was controversial, just that it should be presented to the reader in plain, easy to read prose. Not insinuated by off-hand remarks made in discreet parts of the article. As for the lost pages remark, I've got no problem with where it is, just the context needs to be better established. It's speculation by Bushman and even he gives Smith the benefit of the doubt in suggesting the re-translation might be different. Padillah (talk) 20:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not set on the exact Cowdery language here, but I do think it's important to establish Cowdery's context. The reader wants to know who Cowdery was and why he so quickly and easily became Smith's closest associate. Just having some character appear out of nowhere in the middle of a narrative is not good storytelling. Given how important Cowdery was to Smith in the early period, I think we can spare a few words establishing his context.

As to the explanation about the lost pages, I don't see the controversy. That the reason was "to ensure that the lost pages could not later be found and compared to the re-translation" is the same explanation given in Mormon scripture, and Bushman confirms that reading of the scripture. Since this is the standard Mormon explanation, I don't understand why anyone would see this as an NPOV or OR issue. And we absolutely need to explain why, after spending so much time and effort to create these 116 pages, Smith just gave up on the Book of Lehi. COGDEN 23:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I thought Cowdery would have been introduced by now (in the article prose). I think I agree we can't just have him show up and be trusted with the plates and translation. He should be properly introduced and his position in the family and Smiths "circle of trust" be explained. Not in gratuitous detail but more than just "a teacher and a dowser".

As for the "lost pages" that's not quite how I read it. This may seem pedantic but I feel the phrase "to ensure that the lost pages could not later be found and compared to the re-translated text" suggests that the act of comparing them would be unfavorable. That's not quite the message the Church or Bushman is sending. They suggest that the comparison would be made so that any re-translation will fail to match-up completely and that would be used as ammunition against the Church. The first is fatalistic in that it assumes any comparison would, de facto, end badly. Padillah (talk) 03:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

For Cowdery, I would want to say something roughly like the following: that he was "a friend of the Smith family whose education and folk magical background made him a natural choice to be Smith's scribe and most trusted follower."

For the "lost pages" issue, I think it was guaranteed that such a comparison would have been unfavorable. From the Mormon perspective, this is because, like the scripture said, there was a conspiracy of wicked men who intended to alter the original text to ensure that the comparison failed. Nobody, Mormon or non-Mormon, has ever suggested that the re-translation and the lost 116 pages would have ended up being consistent with each other. COGDEN 19:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, the entire note involved here, "Smith and Cowdery began translating...", is unnecessary detail for this article and can safely be relegated to Book of Mormon, where there is more room for elaborating on the situation. We need keep only the reference. I agree with the general sentiment that Cowdery should be adequately introduced, as he relates to Smith. ...comments? ~BFizz 05:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree the detail is less important, which is why it is found in the footnotes rather than the main text. At the moment, I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other about deleting it from the footnote, but I'd like to see what others think. the point is discussed in all the references on Smith, and even references on broad church history like Allen & Leonard and Arrington & Bitten, and Brodie devotes a full page to it. But does that mean it an important point that should be in the article? I don't know. COGDEN 08:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I like explanatory footnotes and don't see any harm including this one. I also don't get excited about removing helpful information in order to further a religious agenda. But as both B and COGDEN have implied, the note's not critical to any reader's understanding. I realize at Wikipedia you're not suppose to trade one thing for another, but I'd certainly be happy to forgo this note in exchange for a clearer reference to Cowdery's magic world-view, such as the one COGDEN has proposed above.--John Foxe (talk) 14:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

@Foxe, I think I agree that I like Cogden's Cowdrey intro as well. It's short and gets the points out there.

@Cogden, I think that's just the point I was making. The original footnote made it sound like any comparison would fail because the whole thing is bunk. I agree much more with your observation that there's no way some of these guys would let the comparisons be fair. The difference being someone actively making the comparison fail. Now, given that this is a footnote in a tangentially related article and we already have an entire article to dedicate to this I feel we can skip it here (other than to ref the other article). Padillah (talk) 12:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Joseph Smith's surprisening ancestry.

I got to read on a website that has his ancestry genealogy on there that had emperor constantine the great, viking and danish kings as ancestors. Is that all true? Its a website about the smith family that you can find on a link on Joseph Smith, Sr.'s website. Please answer me and thank you.- Jana —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.54.66.213 (talk) 21:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

It's probably true, but not very remarkable. Constantine and Viking and Danish kings have millions of ancestors. The further you go back, the more likely you are to have a royal ancestor. We all probably have royal blood if you go back far enough. COGDEN 05:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Supernatural Force?

"Smith said he attempted to remove the plates the next morning but was unsuccessful because the angel struck him down with supernatural force."

Can we exclude the "supernatural" in this sentence? It seems a bit redundant considering the fact that an ANGEL struck him down. --CABEGOD (talk) 04:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

"with force" sounds like he was bitchslapped when "supernatural force" could simply sound like "held back, not allowed to progress with the plates". Perhaps "the angel struck him down with a force"? It seems much more clear and neutral that way. tedder (talk) 04:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Or, alternatively, The Force? ;) What words did Joseph himself use to describe it? Perhaps we can simply say that the angel "struck him down"? I personally see nothing wrong with saying "with supernatural force", redundant though it is. ...comments? ~BFizz 05:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

How about "...because the angel overwhelmed him with force" ? It sounds like more of a Heavenly Wedgie. --CABEGOD (talk) 05:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I think as long as it's clear that it was a magical force, as opposed to just garden-variety bitchslapping, there shouldn't be a problem. "Struck him down with a force" is probably okay, or "struck him to the ground with a force", both of which at least imply magic. We don't know exactly the words Smith used when he told the story to others, but Cowdery said he was "shocked", Whitmer said "hurled" (clear off the hill Cumorah, in fact), I think Lucy Mack and Willard Chasesaid something like that he was "struck" by the angel. Fayette Lapham said that he "felt something strike him on the breast...such as to lay him upon his back". Smith's sister said there was a "pressure pushing him away". A couple of Smith's in-laws said he was "knocked down". COGDEN 06:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I think "...because the angel struck him down with a force" would work.--CABEGOD (talk) 00:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Where is this info coming from "struck down" and "with force". Oh, and the words "mystical" and/or "magical" are quite the touch for describing what was very firmly described personally by Joseph as "Sacred" and "Holy". Quite a play on words we get from the writers on here. Obviously the quoted text we are currently getting from this Wikipedia article is not from the personal account of Joseph Smith, Jr. because he never said anything such things. Only the Church which he started contains his original writings and manuscripts and the original writings and manuscript of those people who worked alongside the man. That means that all other outsider historians cannot quote Joseph correctly unless they refer to the publications of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. One cannot say there are any other believable sources for his words as former members that were unrepentant sinners who were excommunicated obviously had a hard biases against the prophet, and viciously attacked with their words. These cannot be believable accounts in historical record. As far as what splinter group churches currently may say...I'm not sure but I think all these churches together make up like less than 1% in Church membership as compared to the said Church. So they are not believable themeselves. Oh, and back then at the time by far the majority of the General Church Authorities stayed with the Church mentioned when it came time to decide after Joseph's death. So back to the original question, who else was there to eyewitness the event?? Nobody else. So this account must be coming from someone who wrote the hearsay of local folk or even more distant unbelievable witnesses. There was only one eye witness in that scene and it was Joseph himself. Period. Therefore no other account can be trusted. Would this not be a fair assessment? How would you like it if you wrote your own account of a lone personal experience that changed your life and then everyone started making up their own versions of what they think probably happened? That would be a source of invalid historical accounts and that is what makes up a good portion of the entire Wikipedia Joseph Smith, Jr. article. This is also why many church members shun this site. Basically it comes down to a fight, so since this article concerns the teachings of Jesus Christ it behooves us to not fight about it (contention is not of God). If you want the finest scholarly source that can be found on the subject look up "The Joseph Smith Papers." It is a relatively new project that is coming out in annual installments that will eventually comprise 30 volumes. It contains the photo copies of the original Joseph Smith's personal journal entries, correspondance, discourses and written histories, and legal and business documents written in his own hand or by the hands of those working alongside him.

There isn't a publication about this subject on this planet that is as scholarly as this one. I mean honestly, rumors written taken to be as historical fact??? Just because someone claims to be an authority, though they be from the same time does not make them so. Just because someone says they are an eyewitness does not mean they were. We have to learn to read inbetween the lines sometimes. Look at the statements from Joseph Smith, Jr. himself and then look at the garbage that is written about him and ask yourself if the two sides match. They do not. The character portrayed by these so called historical eye witnesses of the time do not at all match up with what the man said and what he taught. Only those who take enough care and time to search out and study these things know this. Otherwise it is just outside haters that throw up an off-hand at the man and trust unnofficial sources that claim scholarly research and work. What a diservice to Wikipedia. The only way you can get to know about Joseph Smith Jr and what he believed is by reading his own account and the account of those who worked along side him for substantial amounts of time. And such information is *not* located on Wikipedia.org currently.--steve200255 (talk) 20:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why we should trust anything that arch liar said. He conned the gullible into believing he could find buried treasure, swore he could see letters on gold plates by looking at a stone in his hat, and lied repeatedly to his wife about his additional "wives," a couple of whom were fourteen.129.82.88.48 (talk) 04:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Ahem. In between these two extremes of opinion, there is a middle ground that happily is what Wikipedia requires: using reliable, scholarly secondary sources as the main authority for this article. steve200255, you should note that a great deal of this article is referenced to Richard Bushman, who can't credibly be called anti-Mormon. He and all other good historians have to take into account not only what a person says about himself, but what his contemporaries, successors, admirers, and critics all say too. And Wikipedia should seek to reflect the balance of these sources. Similarly, to our anonymous contributor above: if a reliable scholarly source gives credence to something Joseph Smith claimed, this article should respect that regardless of one's own opinion about Joseph Smith's trustworthiness. And in any case, this is not the place to argue about matters of personal opinion. alanyst ^/talk/ 04:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Steve, you say that "The only way you can get to know about Joseph Smith Jr and what he believed is by reading his own account and the account of those who worked along side him for substantial amounts of time. And such information is *not* located on Wikipedia.org currently." Can you elaborate on exactly what you feel is missing, either from this article or from Teachings of Joseph Smith, Jr.? And how do you propose we fix it? Though not written from a "believing" perspective, Smith's teachings and character are explained fairly well here at wikipedia.org currently. ...comments? ~BFizz 07:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Just get rid of "supernatural." That will probably shut steve up and won't disappoint 129.82.88.48 too badly. --63.226.104.225 (talk) 16:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

When did angels begin to be described as magical beings? In all of Christiandom or Judaism I have never heard them described as magical. Angels are most often described as divine beings...how about divine force?

Although in scholarly material supernatural is a term used often in conjunction with describing the actions of God or other heavenly beings. The problem is that in more common language, which the vast majority of the readership of this site represents, it is interpreted with the world of magic or demonology. I think there is even a TV show called Supernatural. I see no need to use the term in this article. If it is too controversial to use divine, be basic...the angel prevented him from...--^StormRider 17:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

FWIW there are angels in the Fox series Supernatural so that's no help here. That said, I think the best compromise is just as you suggested - "...unsuccessful because the angel prevented him..." Leave it to the reader to surmise if the angel used supernatural force or not. Padillah (talk) 18:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

"Prevented him" is too generic and non-descriptive. "Struck him down with a force" is better, and it doesn't even need to address what kind of force it was. COGDEN 19:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Above I'm reading "knocked down", "struck", "hurled"... you're right, there was force involved. If it continues to be an issue I'm OK with "Struck him down with a force" Padillah (talk) 11:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Done! Removed "supernatural" from the sentence in question. --CABEGOD 00:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

2003 rollback proposal

Thanks Padillah and Steve. I am prepared to be BOLD but want to discuss first. Yes Padillah, I suggest a change. That change is a revert to August 29, 2003. As to John Foxe's statement he is the only non-member contributing, that is because he and COgden seem to be the only two who don't have their edits reverted. Si if I have Padillah, Steve, and Routerone on side for a do over (revert to august 29, 2003) lets put it to vote. If you follow Foxe's argument that this would be turned into a "Faith-Promoting" article, please go to the revert and ask if it reads as unfairly biased. Then come back here and ask if this sounds biased. Then make your call. BE BOLD!

Who agrees with an August 29 2003 revert,

Canadiandy: Yes.

173.180.110.164 (talk) 14:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

I say "No" to a restart. The only thing that does is arbitrarily throw out every edit for the last 7 years. You expect us to believe there have been NO useful edits in the LAST 7 YEARS? I can't support that. I'm on board for fixing the article, but to throw out every edit for the last 7 years is too far. It will be a lot smoother to simply take a single point, reach a consensus, and make the edit. I don't care if the article reads as biased or not at any given point in time. My goal is to get it to a point that it doesn't read as biased any more. No article is perfect, that's why we edit. As for Foxe statement that he is the only non-Mormon contributing here... that doesn't change Wikipedia policy. Non-Mormons need citable sources the same as Mormons do. Padillah (talk) 14:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Restart: NO ! Duke53 | ^Talk 16:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

B Fizz: No. For reference, here's a link to the article as it stood after the final edit on 23 Aug 2003. The article was being edited frequently at the time. It would make more sense to propose to use the revision after the final edit on 30 Aug 2003. However, rolling back to these revisions loses a lot of content, images (and their alt text!), and all citations. It would also render Finetooth's recent peer review of the article useless. According to WP guidelines, the article as it stands is much closer to Good Article status now than it was on 30 Aug 2003. ...comments? ~BFizz 18:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

"No" from myself as well. That revert would be too far back and would remove a lot of great items in the article. It would be in our best interest to approach the "POV" items one by one and have a discussion about them. This article needs some work, but shouldn't be reverted. --CABEGOD 00:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Reverting the article to the distant past—or the recent past, for that matter—is not going to happen even if I walk in front of a truck tomorrow. I'll remind our teacher friend from Vancouver Island that Wikipedia privileges scholarly secondary sources and deprecates primary sources and promotional websites. Even if the article were reverted, Brodie, Bushman, Quinn, and Vogel would still be the sources on which the article would have to be based.

As for the way the article stood on 30 August 2003: the prose is crude, there's a lot less information (which, of course, is a plus if one's trying to conceal in the interest of promoting a religious belief), and there's not a single citation to any source.--John Foxe (talk) 01:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, BFizz. The Aug 30 article is just fine too. It even includes a reference and link to Brodie for those wanting that perspective. I do understand your concern regarding the article 'approaching' Good Article status, but I think the very reason it isn't (and very likely won't) is because of exactly what has changed, 1. It is much longer. 2 As it stands it is highly inflammatory and negatively cynical (as opposed to neutral) of Joseph Smith. Please reconsider, I know it would be a huge leap, but we can't kid ourselves that this article has become incredibly messy and reads more like an expose'.

Thanks for responding with respect and serious consideration.

So let's repose the question,

Who votes to revert to August 30, 2003?

I vote yes.

173.180.110.164 (talk) 01:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

Sorry, still no. I appreciate that you're making a good-faith suggestion that you really think will help the article, but we can't just throw away 433 references, and prose that has been discussed and tweaked many, many times by many, many people. It would be an insult to everyone that has worked on this article over the past 7 years to simply discard their contributions. Please reconsider your assessment that the article is "highly inflammatory and negatively cynical." ...comments? ~BFizz 03:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. The 2003 version of the article was uncited, and there were many holes in its portrayal of Smith's history. It was also written before Bushman's 2005 work, which has greatly informed this article. COGDEN 06:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Despite being eager to change and neutralize the manipulated nature of the page. I object to the idea of going back in time 7 years on this page. Although I disagree with Foxe's and COGDENs somewhat editing style, self arbitration tactics, use of self conclusions, selection of only material that puts Smith in a bad light and a highly negative prose, in all due respect the work they have put in has been of a highly significant quality. The article just needs refurbishing. The aim should be to go forwards and not backwards in fixing this article. Just think, some builders work hard on establishing a magnificent skyscraper, it is incredibly tall and an icon on the city skyline. However the interior is shabby and unpleasant. Tell me, do you knock it all down and start again just because of that? or do you continue to work on it? As much as I am on your side. You'll need a more convincing proposal than that to put things right. Routerone (talk) 07:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)