Your insistence is growing and your recent edit to the "Warning" was just plain silly. I understand your position and I choose a different approach than the one you are proffering. You seem to be taking it personal and are resulting to inappropriate behavior. You will find that you will more often get your way by cooperating with others and seeking concensus, offering alternatives that are well thought out, and by listening to others. You have a good eye for editing and your continued efforts will be appreciated. However, if you continue to make silly edits that show a rather immature attitude you will not get far on WIKI. Oh, by the way, don't take the last comment personal; just look at my edit history and you will notice that I am quite capable of immature behavior also. It does not mean that we are idiots, but that we both are just very human. Storm Rider (talk) 05:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
How is this material relevant to the life of JSJ? He wasn't there, and it didn't directly affect his life in any way, shape or form.
Hello? Anybody there? Alright, I'll work on that, but if you don't like it, plz discuss before reverting. Thx.
(Mostly) to Ju66l3r:
My main goal with my edits was to reign in the size of this section, and removing details that were, in my eyes, extraneous. I double checked that anything that I removed was contained in the " Death of Joseph Smith, Jr." article, and in fact I added a fact or two to it, from this article. But the simple fact of this is that this section was (and now is) not succienctly summarized. "Details and quotations" which I removed were all (as far as I felt) not useful for the reading of the article. Smith has a lot of detail in his life, which, to the average reader of Wikipedia, it can get tedious to read all 66kb of it. Thus, I HIGHLY suggest that we streamline, basically to the barebones, this article. Kind of like I had done, but apparently you took exception to it.
I admit that the {{fact}} template may have been overboard, but a refernce there would still be nice - where could we find the text of that quotation? But even as it is, since it is included in the main article, then the simple statement "Violent threats were made against Smith and the Mormon community." should be sufficient, and then a hyperlink to the text of the Warsaw signal could be referenced. Or maybe the text itself should be referenced. Suggestions here?
For the general reference, here is my edit, and here is your revert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.121.173.56 ( talk • contribs)
Seeing as the "Major teachings" section is near one third of this article's total length, I feel that it should be broken out into a subarticle, with references left to his most basic teachings, and his most controversial teachings. Perhaps:
and leave the rest for anyone curious enough to visit the subarticles.
Any thoughts? Support? Disagree? Different choices for teachings to reference?
207.175.48.45 22:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I just removed the following from the text pending a review of its verifiability and reliability. Normally I would just use {{ fact}}; however, once this is put out on the wikipedia mirrors it will make online research much more difficult.
...collapsed four weeks after its opening and three months prior to a nationwide banking crisis. Many critics leveled accusations that Smith was actively misleading KSS members from the beginning of the financial enterprise as it was operating without an official Ohio bank charter and required specie reserves. On March 24, 1837 he was convicted in a Chardon, Ohio court of operating an illegal bank (Chardon, Ohio court records, Vol U, p. 362).
A quick serach of for this returned hundreds of hits, but none seemed related to Joseph Smith. I doubt its authenticity primarily because with the number of websites that normally come up when searching for negative information about Joseph Smith is normally very high. And since this purports to be such a irrefutable source (court records) I would expect it to be widely used. Any research assistance would be appreciated. -- Trödel 00:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Did you think to actually call the Chardon (not Chauncey, what is that?) court?. I can think of no more authoritative way to cite a court decision. Better than anything you'll find searching on a single site, sidneyrigdon.com, which is the source of 5 of the 6 citations you give that omit this fact. If it helps, it was mentioned in Brodie 1971, pg. 198. Please restore this text. -- Kbrewster 01:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
(Mostly) to Trodel: I'm sorry, but I can't see how you see my edits regarding Masonry and the First Vision as POV. I'm quite confused. I assure you that it is not my intention to insert POV material in this article. WOuld you explain to me please why you chose to revert my edits on a POV basis?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.121.173.56 ( talk • contribs)
Alright, here's my edit. I'll look for the citations later, but it should do for now; I know that I've seen the citiation for the second {{fact}} somewhere before, but the first one might not be right. I really feel that they ought to be in there, seeing as it is an important arguement of anti-Mormons (to my knowledge).
As always, please discuss on the talk page before reverting me, so I know what I did wrong. Thanks.
Alright, seeing as the previous discussion has gone inactive, and I would really like to see this happen, I would like to continue to discuss splitting the article.
We currently have in the article the following:
5 Major teachings
My proposal is as follows:
Step 1) Create new article, titled
Teachings of Joseph Smith, Jr.. It would be as follows:
Introduction (consisting, for now, of what is listed under the main section in Major Teachings)
1 Christianity
2 Nature Of God
3 Priesthood
4 Plan of Salvation
5 Families
6 The Book of Mormon
7 The Word Of Wisdom
8 The Law of Consecration
9 Temples
10 Major prophecies
11 Polygamy
12 Great Apostasy
Basically, a copy of what's here now.
Of course, that would be for starters; the point of making the new article is to allow greater expansion of content. Also, the order in which they are in doesn't seem logical to me, so we might want to reorder them.
Step 2) Leave in the current article as follows:
5 Major teachings (main section should consist of what there is now, probably minus the sentence on Wentworth letter, also probably plus a sentence explaining that herein lies much of his significance and controversy)
Because they are short enough (with the possible exception of polygamy), the text that is there now would remain on all of these sections.
My reasoning is as follows: this article is too long. Most people, looking for info on Smith, will not get to the bottom. We've tried to summarize his biography, but that can only go so far down. I think that we need to move these sections out.
According to WP:SIZE:
Some useful rules of thumb for splitting articles...:
> 50 KB Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)
(This article is 66kb.)
5 subsections (Christianity, Families, The Word Of Wisdom, Major Prophecies, and The Law of Consecration) and ~625 words would be removed from an article of ~6,750 words. (Note: In word counts, I have only counted the body of the article.)
There, I'm done. Now what do you guys (or girls too) think?
I have moved it to the "1827 - 1831" section of the article, seeing as it was orignially published with the BoM in 1830. If anyone could point to source saying exactly when it occurred (please?), then it could be put in the appropriate section chronologially. But Smith didn't even meet Cowdrey until 1829, so it is unlikely that the vision was before then!
I apologize to anyone I may have offended by adding some silly remarks to this article. I did so simply to see what would happen, as I'm new to this type of dynamic content. I did, however, make one change which I felt was wholly appropriate. I removed the category link to Category:Christian martyrs. There is already an appropriate category link to Category:Mormon martyrs.
Mormonism is considered heresy by mainstream Christian doctrine. Additionally, there are scores of martyrs throughout history who died for their unwavering commitment to traditional Christian doctrines. I cannot see how Smith's rejection of traditional Christianity would keep him in the category of "Christian Martyrs". If a Mormon rejected Mormonism to become Baptist, then died in a fight with some angry Mormons, I don't think you would consider him a Mormon martyr. By the same token, how can you consider the opporsite to be true?
Also, I don't believe one can make the case that Smith's death in a shootout with federal employees constitutes the death of a martyr, especially when one considers that it was Smith's practice of polygamy that drew the ire of the federal government in the first place. Smith's death transpired as a result of his commitment to this practice, rather than his commitment to Mormonism. Even if one were to argue that Mormonism is "true" Christian doctrine, I don't believe that Smith's death wouldn't qualify as a martyr's death.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.53.128.158 ( talk • contribs) .
I Completely agree with Storm Rider and COGDEN - the other thing to keep in mind here is that he didn't convert from being a baptist to being a Mormon. He wanted to reform or restore christianity, which is the same as many other christian martyrs - from Ignatius of Antioch to George Blaurock - both of which started their own denominations, if you will. These and others were seen as heretics at the time, but their ideas lived on and changed christianity. Smith is still seen as a heretic for the time being, but his ideas have changed christianity already. That said, for the purpose of wikipedia perhaps it is too close to his death to classify him as such - but he will someday - time will rule in his favor, IMHO. Even american history is starting to acknowledge his influence on law, slavery, settlement and city planning and more.
This is probably a talking point for a bigger discussion, however, there are a number of people listed in the christian martyrs category that probably shouldn't be there at all - for example - the Bonhoeffer family - they were killed not for their beliefs in Christianity, but because they joined an anti Nazi movement. Joan of Arc was killed for her military endeavors and for her claiming to have personal communion and revelation from God - which is still considered heretical by most non-catholic christians (and yet very similar to the reasons for Smith's death. Both claimed to be told by God to teach and say things that are still considered heretical). Dorothy Kazel was a missionary who was killed in a violent crime - not for her beliefs, but because she was giving support to guerrillas - her alleged rape and death was highly political in nature, not for her being a christian or her beliefs in christ.
What about to a non-Christain - how would they percieve it? If you are going to be universal about applying the term - it should be by the definition given in wikipedia - "a martyr is a person who dies for their convictions or religious faith." Add to that the wikipedia definition of a Christian: "A Christian is a follower of Jesus of Nazareth, referred to as Christ. Christians believe Jesus to be the Son of God, who lived a life befitting that of the creator of the universe, free of sin, who at the end of his earthly life was crucified, and then on the third day, rose from the dead, and later ascended into heaven. These beliefs are held by the vast majority of Christian denominations." Using those basic wikipedia definitions - he qualifies.
Since Smith's teachings fully agree with that ("The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it" -Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 121).), although some thought that his "deeper" interpretation of the bible was heretical, and he was killed for his religious convictions of how to practice what he deemed true christianity, then he probably qualifies more as a christian martyr than half of the people in the category. Or perhaps we should change the definitions of Christian and Martyr? Then again, as I stated above, it may be too soon to categorize him as such for another 50 years, but by the 200th anniversary of his death, I believe that the bulk of "christians" will consider him as such, especially if they consider folks like John Forrest (martyr), Charles Garnier (missionary) or others who died for political reasons, not for their religion. - Visorstuff 22:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I've heard it stated that Smith died in a shootout with federal marshalls, as well. I'm not certain of the authenticity of the claim, but I was told this by a Mormon missionary. He also stated that the Smithsonian had found direct evidence that Native Americans were one of the original tribes of Israel. This has proven to be completely false, so I'm not certain that the young man knew what he was talking about.
In terms of Smith's place in Christian history, I agree with the first anonymous poster concerning the category. Though there were true martyrs of the faith that were deemed heretics by other sects of Christianity, there were also legitmately labeled heresies that are still considered heresy by modern Christian scholars. The final call on this subject does not rest on the majority opinion, even the majority opinion of Christians, but upon the opinions and doctrines expressed in the Bible. As long as LDS doctrine stands in contradiction to these, it cannot be considered "Chrstian", regardless of what label the LDS church puts on it. I understand that Mormon belief does not consider the Bible to be the infallible word of God. But, it is the only source of Christian doctrine for nearly two millennia before Smith's birth. Stark contradictions to it cannot be deemed a legitimate part of it. By the same token, I would have a hard time describing Smith as a Christian martyr.
I understand that some of the Mormon readers are going to read this and say, "Whoa, our beliefs are not in contradiction to the Bible." But, they really are. Few Mormon missionaries or believers ralize how very, very far their beliefs are from Christian teachings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.110.50.190 ( talk • contribs)
'Sansifying' the South Park links. Completely irrelevant for an encyclopedia article (well, mayber other than 'SouthPark').
-- Coldblackice 02:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I say keep the South Park reference. South Park is a significant cultural critic, and they devoted considerable resources to an exposition of Joseph Smith's life. You may think their analysis biased or otherwise flawed, but they certainly deserve a bullet under the heading "In the modern media." I'm going to try to figure out how to revert it back in. -- Skidoo 00:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I deleted the contents of this page; due to the fact that I do not wish to create any controversy. I respect this human experience we are all having and do not wish to appear as one who discounts individuals who work hard discovering what good really is and how to; make the most from the least, and not as I was taught; to make the least from the most. Kisida 16:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Hey all, great to see the progress that this article has made since I left. It looks like it's approaching FA status, although there is still definately more work to be done. I notice, with chagrin, that the 1831 to 1844 section is stupendously disjointed and difficult to catch the flow of, and missing various important parts, and has several less important parts. And at least half of the references section is probably obsolete. And the "Bibliography" section and subarticle ( Works relating to Joseph Smith, Jr.) need work to look good. (Is it advisable to have a subarticle for the bibliography?? I don't think so.)
But beyond those glaring dificulties, this article looks incredible! If you don't see how far it's come, check out http://www.answers.com/topic/joseph-smith, http://www.theowiki.com/index.php?title=Joseph_Smith%2C_Jr.&redirect=no, or any other inactive Wiki mirror sight. You may be astounded at how primitive this article used to look.
Although I have stated that I would not edit this wiki, I do feel that these things are important, so I'll update the to-do list with what I see as necessary things to do here.
I am heartened by the progress which has been made in my absence, and hope that it is able ot continue. Please continue to work to improve this encyclopedia, and this article in particular. The world needs more truth regarding this great man. -- Trevdna 21:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Also see near the mob quote: "f... a...."
See the quote on the page about Joseph Smith:
"This theophany, Smith said in most of his accounts of the vision, included the voice and appearance of your mom, who forgave him of his sins."
Your mom?
(Mostly) to Zarahemlite: Your edit removed the word "controversial" in describing Smith in the first sentence of the article, with the edit summary "Don't agree with controversial wording". Would you please explain your reasoning? Because I was under the impression that the accepted consensus, both within this article, and the population at large was that Smith was VERY controversial.
From dictionary.com: "con‧tro‧ver‧sial –adjective 1. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of controversy; polemical"
and
"con‧tro‧ver‧sy –noun 1. a prolonged public dispute, debate, or contention; disputation concerning a matter of opinion."
He claimed that he had seen the Father and the Son at 14 years old. Claimed he had been called of God to reestablish the truth of Christanity. Claimed that he recieved revelations in direct opposition with mainstream Christian teachings, (which he called "abominations"). His character and integrity have been assaulted, both during and after his life. I could go on and on, but this is quite a lot. I would say that Smith fits this definition of "controversial" quite well.
For reference, here is your edit.
I believe this article is in need of substantial neutrality review. Pro-Joseph Smith editors have deleted virtually every edit that is critical of JS. The bottom line is that 99.5% of the world believes that JS was a con artist and fraud, but this page reads like he is a genuine religious leader. There is no mention of his arrest, no mention of his joining the Methodist church, very little mention of polygamy and his treatment of women and dissenters in the LDS movement, etc. Even if Mormons do not believe in many of the facts about JS, the fact these controversies should be discussed in a neutral fashion. A scroll through the history of the pages reveals that neutral-izing edits are quickly reverted, and most of the editors dedicated to the page spend all their time on Mormon-related pages. Put simply, this article needs substantial editing to present both points of view about Joseph Smith. Masonuc (20:33, 16 October 2006)
I have taken the liberty of removing the part on mob violence from this article, and moving it to the subarticle. My reasoning is twofold:
Despite these, however, this did include factual information which one could argue belongs in an encyclopedia. Thus, I chose to put it in the subarticle, rather than delete it entirely.
Excuse me, Storm Rider. I was unsure if your reversion of my deletion was accidental or not. (As there had been vandalism before me that was also reverted.) As it is now apparent that your reversion was not accidental, I will not edit the section in question until it is resolved here, on the talk page. I had no intention of beginning an edit war.
I felt that this section was not a central theme to Smith's life when I took it out. It would appear that you disagree with me. This boils down to a matter of perspective. Therefore, I would request other perspectives from other editors be voiced here, in order to help establish consensus. If it appears that other editors strongly favor the inclusion of the material in question, then I will gladly let this issue go. But if the consensus is that the section in question should be removed from the main article, then I hope that we can all accept the wishes of the majority.
I believe that the issue is best treated in a subarticle. Further, the section, as it now stands, refers to one particular instance of mob persecution, rather than the persecution that he suffered as a whole. And, while the persecution as a whole would probably be appropriate for the main article, I think that two paragraphs dealing with a single instance is excessive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.99.171.66 ( talk • contribs)
why are there different reference types?? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
130.127.137.188 (
talk •
contribs)
This article is totally biased in every way. Not only are the headlines slanted towards Smith and the Church, all of your sources come from LDS material or from biased sources. How about we rewrite this article in an UNBIASED slant, telling only historical facts both good and bad, not only the good things. You only added a few bad things that he was envolved in, and when you did you biasly slanted the report in a defense of Smith. Why are you so biased in everything, not everyone is perfect, and slanting Smith in this way is not only un-historical, but unethical. If you truly are a scholar, why not present things in an unbias manner? User:158.135.12.160
Storm Rider you really should take a break. Spend time with your children or something. Do your home teaching etc. There are serious issues with this article and will always be as long as people like you hover over it. Please try not and take that personal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.234.26.109 ( talk • contribs)
At first I thought I would just help people get editing right. Now I am more curious than anything else how much energy and time people will put it to go after me instead of just fixing the outlining and editing it correctly. I guess some people have stamp collecting and others have monitoring wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.139.244.193 ( talk • contribs)
I now go into oblivion. Mormons and anti-mormons will now be that much closer to learn how to write peer reviewed articles. Cheers mate! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.127.134.249 ( talk • contribs)
Why is there no mention of the 1826 trial in New York state? Like it or not, this is part of Smith's history that appears to be being ignored here. Duke53 | Talk 07:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Beg to differ, the case seems pretty open and shut to me: Joseph Smith Jr. was an imposter. Please read: http://www.xmission.com/~country/reason/ny_js.htm Apostle12 08:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
How can the wording "Church of Christ" be fixed in this article. The Church of Christ (Campbell) and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Smith) are two very separate entities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marrilpet ( talk • contribs)
The subsection entitled Myth of Joseph Smith killing two men at Carthage is adequately covered in detail in Death of Joseph Smith, Jr. and need not be repeated here verbatim. This is a very minor point, and this summary article cannot afford the bloat involved in going into such detail. Moreover, there are some NPOV problems. Therefore, I'm deleting it. COGDEN 21:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
"CyberAnth, the major reason is that there is no current history that conflicts with the Book of Mormon for that time period." --By that same token there is no history which contradicts the existence of unicorns and centaurs.
To lead with Smith being described as a religious leader and polygamist is NOT a POV violation. It is fact, and is well cited later in the article. It is no more POV to call him a polygamist than to call him a religious figure or an American or any other factual descriptive term. Smith is well known for being a polygamist and therefore it is perfectly legitimate to describe him as such. To call it a POV violation is to express a bias. Who is to say that polygamy is negative thing? It doesn't even necessarily paint Smith in a negative way - it all depends on your opinion of polygamy. But to deny that this is an accurate term to describe Smith is ludicrous, especially since it is fully explained later on in the article. It is not leading in any way towards any POV or bias. For example, if someone views religion as negative, then to call someone a "religious figure" could be construed as a leading-POV, and thus using the logic of some people on here, should be eliminated. Facts are facts - good or bad, Smith is known to many as a polygamist. This is an irrefutable fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.161.230.111 ( talk) 22:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
As an avid Wikipedia reader, I was surprised to read the paragraph below in an Enclyclopedia article. This makes the visit from the prophe Moroni sound like a proven fact, as well as the existence of a set of metal plates coming straight from God. I certainly find this shocking as a neutral observer, and suggest that editors rethink the wording of these and other paragraphs in this article to reflect the uncertainty of such claims and the leap of faith required to consider them authentic.
"In 1823 visitation from a resurrected prophet named Moroni[8] led to his finding and unearthing (in 1827) a long-buried book, inscribed on metal plates, which contained a record of God's dealings with the ancient Israelite inhabitants of the Americas. The record, along with other artifacts (including a breastplate and what Smith referred to as the Urim and Thummim), was buried in a hill near his home. On September 22, 1827, Smith's record indicates that the angel allowed him (after 4 years of waiting and preparation) to take the plates and other artifacts. Almost immediately thereafter Smith began having difficulties with people trying to discover where the plates were hidden on the Smith farm.[9]"
Charlie 81.107.35.207 ( talk) 14:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I was also surprised to read the passage below (from the 1827-1930 section), which seems to have the same issues. While it does cite the source, the statement itself does not follow the same POV as the rest of the article, which takes care to point out when something is as stated or written by those involved, including Smith. What I mean to say is, the article's POV doesn't seem consistent. I realize this may be difficult, as much of the information seems speculative or biased in nature.
"Before publication, Joseph was permitted to show the ancient record to other men. These men have recorded their personal witnesses of seeing an angel show them the record (plates), seeing the record, handling the plates, hearing the voice of the Lord command them to bear witness of the veracity of the record."
On another note, it seems strange that there is a separate article dedicated to this period of time in Smith's life. Should this be merged with the existing article? It only covers three years and this article seems to summarize it well, for the most part. If this issue has been addressed already I apologize, as I see there is an extensive archive and I'm relatively new as far as involvement in Wiki.
Garonyldas ( talk) 08:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Cambene ( talk) 03:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)CamBene
The unusual citation style used in this article makes it incredibly difficult to read. Why can't the normal WP <cite> tag be used? Fragglet 00:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone know if Joseph Smith was ever baptised into another denomination before his "revelations"? I seem to recall mention that there was a baptismal record entered for him in the Methodist Church when he was an infant, but I can't recall the source.
I reverted and thus deleted a quote supposedly from Hale today. It was just plopped into the article without any introduction. If one is going to introduce a quote, then it may easily be appropriate but taking a quote and introducing it, particularly when it is controversial, when be best. Additionally, why is Hale appropriate or worthwhile. Did he know any of the subject firsthand? No. Was it hearsay? Yes. What is the value of the quote? Possibly to describe how inidividuals felt about Joseph Smith. It is not, however, a quote about facts or reality, which the editor appeared to be using it. -- Storm Rider (talk) 16:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Any comments on how I divided the time periods? It seemed the most logical division to me, but we can always fiddle with the year boundaries. COGDEN 22:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Joseph Smith was shot before the Latter Day Saits Settled in Utah. So I don't know how he was a military force in the west. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.168.142.226 ( talk • contribs) 19:43, 16 January 2007.
I am new to WIKI so you can take this for what it's worth. I have also looked through some of the archives and have seen that there have been some heated debates over NPOV issues, so I will go ahead and say some of you might not like what I have to say. Here it goes anyway. In the initial summary of Joseph Smith I don't think it is a very NPOV to say that his "teachings were similar...to other false movements of his time". That is saying his teachings were false and you can not prove that with facts, anymore than anyone else can prove it is true. Saying it is false is very much a slanted point of view, as well as saying he was a con man with the statement "his ability to con what was to eventually become millions". Who can prove it was a con? You either believe him or you don't, So state the facts, but leave the opinions out. it is fine to say he was a contraversial figure, that is true. you can say he started a religion that would come to be known as mormons, that is also true and unbias. But some of these other statements are bias with the intent on pursuading readers, which I believe is not the intent of WIKI. I also would hesitate with the frequent use of the word "cult". I know the defenition of the word, and that technically there is nothing wrong with that statement, but there is an inherently negetive connotation in that word, again that would try to persuade the unbias reader. In the interest of NPOV I would suggest removing the "false" and "con" statements, and try to use a diferent word than cult. CHEERS! mookkick 04:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I think the article could do with more attention to fact. I began to reread the article today and I found several instances of conjecture and misstatement of fact. I am dismayed that we have not been more diligent about reviewing this article. The current article is not factual and carries with it a tone best left to religious tracts, but not for an encyclopedia. -- Storm Rider (talk) 21:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I am new to WikipediA, but in reading this article I found it some what biased towards trying to prove that Joseph Smith was a Christian reformer. It also seemed to gloss over facts about why his followers killed him. If this article is to be encyclopedic in nature then it should not claim Joseph Smith as an early Christian restorationist, unless there is proof that Mormonism is a Christian movement, which it is not generally accepted as. Also the article really needs to provide details on why his followers had become so disaffected that they killed him. Finally I hope I don't offend anyone, because that is not my intent. My only intent is to see an article that is NPOV and not biased 19th Century History-for-12 14:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Wow is the a bad article. The history of Joesph Smith is presented from only his reports, and he being a confivited felone. While most sentences at least have a "reportedly" or some such, other don't, leaving readers to believe statements made only by this man as factual. I think its a good example of the corrosive power of faith. Without faith, people search honestly for the truth, with it, people, well, write articles like this. (Talk)
"This article is watched by several stout LDS wikipedians who work hard to keep it accurate and NPOV." Does anyone else read irony in this statement? I think I'd like to watch a little more myself, never having being affiliated with Mormonism in any way. There's a long list of sources at Talk:Criticism of Mormonism that require their own articles to establish notability. Thought I'd give a headsup. ClaudeReigns ( talk) 07:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
On the issue of the relation of of Mormons with other Christians( Catholic, Protestant, Eastern Orthodox) is that the all the other Christians believe the Mormons are not true Christians, and Mormons think they are the only true Christians. Saying a Christian is a person who believes Jesus is Christ, is overlooking the fact that many of these disagreements is who Jesus is, and what Christ is. A Christian is a follower of Christ, if someone worships a false god and calls him Jesus, he is not a Christian.
Rds865 (
talk)
02:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I deleted an edit of today that stated the following:
First, it is unfortunate that the editor is either creating a myth or repeating it. Joseph's final words as he fell to the ground outside the jail were, "O Lord, my God!" (HC 6:618). When making edits of this caliber, editors would do well to document or reference their edits. It will clear up their own misunderstandings before making edits and it will also ensure that your edit has a much stronger probability of contributing something worthwhile. Cheers. -- Storm Rider (talk) 06:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
This is untrue. Joe Smiths last words were, "To hell with you dogmatic dumbasses! Let a man work a decent scam for a change!" I know this because Joe Smith was all about complete BS,and whatever he was thinking was his true words and it simply had to be something along those lines. Good Luck Dogmatic Sheeple!
As an aside, the probable misunderstanding comes from a lack of understanding of Masonry and fabriation of what Joseph Smith said. Both Taylor and Richards' accounts both report that as Smith fell from the window, he called out "Oh Lord, my God!" Some have noted this is similar to "Oh, Lord, My God, is there no help for the widow's son?", a traditional Masonic call for aid from fellow Masons (see Hiram Abif). These last recorded words have led to speculation that his statement was a call for assistance from any Masons that may have been in the mob, particularly by anti-Mormons. The problem I see with the allegation is how does calling out to one's God turn into a much larger statement. I recall reading even one Mormon woman that supported this allegation. Personally, I find it lacking. -- Storm Rider (talk) 06:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
The Latter Day Saints Biographical Encyclopedia also says that his last words were "Is there no help for the widow's son?" (Unsigned by anonymous editor)
This is one of the most biased pages I have come across on wiki. There is nothing that can be proven about any of these outrageous claims.
http://www.irr.org/mit/Book-of-Abraham-page.html
http://www.carm.org/lds/ldspapyri.htm Several REAL sources exist that are in stark contrast to the puffed up claims on this site. Without a balanced presentation of the evidence, then NPOV is very obvious, imo. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
71.167.127.176 (
talk)
02:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Would you like me to prove it to you? Joseph Smith said as he was shot and fell out the window "O Lord My God"! ---Matoro183 (Talk | Contributions) 02:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC) yes, I want a video tape of his death, with a recording of his words. they have to be submitted to a lab for verification. otherwise it is not proven. Rds865 ( talk) 00:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I leave for a few months, and I come back to look things over, and this article looks incredible! Great job everybody!
I really think that this article is almost ready for peer review, followed by a FAC.
A few things I see:
But seriously, great job everyone. A lot of the lingering issues that were present when I took my leave have been addressed, and I'm highly encouraged by what I see. Although I won't be actively working much on improving the article myself, I will be checking up more often on things.
-- Trevdna 00:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure if this issue has been taken up before but it seems only right to me that since Joe Smith wrote a lot of stuff about the people of America that were here before the Europeans that those people's view of him and what he said about them should me mentioned somewhere. As a Native American who believes myself to be resonabley well educated I would like to mention that most of what came from the hand of Joe Smith is considered by many in the tribe as very racist and ethnocentric. Almost the entirety of the Book of Mormon is dedicated to telling Native Americans about ourselves as if we did not already know. There is no Liturgical material to be found. Why isn't this mentioned in the article. It is a major issue from where I stand.-- Billiot 06:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Its not as if the site that "TrustTruth" posted was neutral either, it is just as biased, only on the opposite view point.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by KillinInTheNameOf ( talk • contribs) 14:48, 9 June 2007.
I am very conserned about some of these responces. One of the websites you pointed me to tells me that the reason I am not white is because I commited a SIN that will damn me to hell unless I become a Mormon. Excuse me!!! I followed a link from that site to another one that tells me that if I am a good enough Mormon I may miraculously change from Indian to White in the middle of service and gave accounts that some people had seen just this sort of thing happening. I do not want to be white. If becoming white is a side effect of Mormonism then there is clearly something wrong and very RACIST about the whole thing. Why is it not ok for me to not be White? Why is White good and not white bad? This seems to fit the definition of Racism to a tee. I began by asking simply about the book of Mormon penned by Smith but now I find myself with very deep conserns indeed. I had thought myself well versed in Mormon theology as it is something that I have studied at great length but this is outragous. When did this type of belief begin with the Mormons. If it began with Smith is definatly needs to be included in the article and exposed to the world.-- Billiot 04:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
What kind of reply is that? One ready made at Stromfront.com? Attacking me for asking a legitimate question is silly. Your response has no place in an area where we want to get to the factual base of things. How can you possible say that the Indians were not the first people of the Americas? What is wrong with you? I mean personally. It is true that the Indians did enjoy peace before the white man came. Now we have whites and with them Pollution, crime and disease. Why would I need to go to a blog to ask about a factual question of high importance that might should and might should not be included in this article? I know that many whites of Smith's time were very big racist but the point I am asking is was Joseph Smith. Many things in the book of mormon penned by Smith seem very racist to Indians, and then I see these site that go much farther into the racism. If mormons are racist and that is part of their religion then I see no reason why they would hide it or be ashamed of it. Catholics don't get divorced no matter how much hate is thrown at them. The reason is that Jesus who founded the Catholic Church taught that you can not get divorced. End of story for the Catholics. Now a days divorce is very popular but Catholics won't do it come what may. If the mormon church has recieved racism as a teaching from Smith and it is part of what they believe then why don't they show it to the world? If they really believe it to be right then they should show it to the world. I have studied mormon doctrine for a long time but it looked like they were going to put that kind of stuff behind them but now I see it coming back up. So tell me I am wrong. This noble savage is quite noble but isn't the same kind of savage that the whites have pictured and told all across history. I will not deal with those that will wrongly accuse me of being righously indignate. You are just plain wrong. I say for you to answer my request or stay out of a factual discusion. On another point, How dare you even begin to speak of primacy. I bed you don't even know what the word means and certainly couldn't decline it to from a reasonable sentence. I then ask again, what is wrong with you? I mean personally.-- Billiot 14:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I will no longer address the blatant racist that has so far seen fit to put messages on this site. I instead address anyone else who may come this way and ask them to read the above messages and judge accordingly. The Indians as a matter of pure, unequivical historical FACT were the first people to inhabit BOTH north and south America. Period. Period. Period. It is not a believe, it is a Fact. The Racist above has accused me of Trolling when he is the one throwing racial slurs at people. He hates me because I am not white and because I dare ask question that he does not want answered. Here is a sample of something else he has said.
In so writing he shows that he thinks all Indians to be blood thirsty savage beast unworthy of grace. I ask the Wikipedia community to centure this person. I will not address him. Notice that in all of this, he still refused to simply state up or down the racist character of Joseph Smith or the book of mormon which is what started all of this in the first place. If Smith and the book of mormon are not racist he had only to state it as such. It they are then why not state that as well. What does it really matter except a BETTER and MORE ACCURATE article which is WHY we are HERE in the first place. I found the additional information about racism in the mormon church by following one of the sited links above. It would seem that this really is a big issue with the mormons. If this is wrong and not really part of the mormon church then why not just say it. I leave it for everyone else to judge. I say it is blatant Racism. I will no longer have anything to do with this page and simply mark it off as always being inaccurate beyond my help. I now ask the community to judge who exaclty is violating standards. Is it the one who ask a question and didn't really get a satisfactory answer or the one who spouts racial slurs at another just for asking a question in the first place. How dare this person caution me or anyone else is my opintion. oh, and just so everyone knows, Primacy comes from Primus-a-um which is a Latin adjective that can be used as a substantive. Anyone who knows the correct use of the word would know that it need not belong in this argument. Go ask any historian or Indian who was in America first and you will get the same answer no matter who you talk to. Go ahead, think of it as a test. Only 100% RACIST do not accept that Indians were here first. -- Billiot 17:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Wasn't Joseph Smith either convicted or tried for some sort of magic/con artist type stuff? (Sorry if this seems flippant, but I read it on a website and can't remember the details.)
He was tried but not convicted (No Man Knows My History) by Fawn M. Brodie. He got in more trouble with the law later on for other things, like all the business in Missouri, but never was actually convicted of anything related to the treasure hunting. 171.66.37.236 21:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
According to Truman Madsen (mormon historian - source: joseph smith lectures) the notion that he was never found guilty is not accurate. He was found guilty on one occasion of casting out devils, but, as the judge noted, since there was no statute against that he would have to be set free. Perhaps another article "the legal trials of Joseph Smith" would be better here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.214.17.17 ( talk) 06:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
This entire article looks like it was written by Mormons. It's organized into epochs, rather than by points of inquiry. There's no critique, no mention of important discrepancies between what Mormon leaders claim and what the facts show, etc., etc. Smith was a charlatan, and a con artist, and it's quite likely that starting the Mormon religion was just his most successful con game. These aren't just opinions; they're facts, backed up by the evidence. Someone needs to do a major re-write, and then lock this article down before the entire state of Utah has a chance to attack it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.172.104 ( talk • contribs) 00:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
This article states that Rigdon formed his church in Greensbug, but I believe it was actually in Monongahela. The current headquarters is in Greensburg, but I'm pretty sure that wasn't where it was originally formed. The article on Sidney Rigdon states the headquarters in Monongahela, which is what I originally heard. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) (Talk) 21:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Rigdon's organization was never in monongahela or greensburg. His organization was based out of Pittsburgh. You are confusing Rigdon's organization with that of The Church of Jesus Christ which is currently headquarted in Monongahela, Pa. and has it's world conference center in Greensburg, Pa. JRN 18:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Wasn't his running mate Brigham Young?
Answer: NO
Very telling and relevant information was for some reason taken out of the article here: [3]. The above category has also been added to reflect the majority prevailing assessment of the subject from historians and the testimony of many of his 'marks' - including the statements referenced above and his numerous temporary female sexual partners (see other wiki articles on his polygamy).
It does seem rather unbalanced to not at least have this included alongside more questionable categorisations such as Category:Prophets
Any other ideas how we can broaden the coverage to be representing all the perspectives that are notable on this subject? The 'Stafford Testimonials' witness statements should not have been taken out, but rather summarised and referred to in the appropriate place in the article as well as its sub-articles. Please see to that. Otherwise we lay ourselves open to the charge of being 'dogmatic sheeple' on this subject.
The below is my response to a new editor, User:Écrasez l'infâme placed on his/her talk page. I will now revert, once again. WBardwin 19:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Écrasez l'infâme 20:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)Such claims that he didn't teach or practice plurality of wives are further called disputed through the official publication in Utah of Doctrine and Covenants Section 132, although this did not take place until almost a decade after Smith's death when the revelation was made public and published. This revelation, in which Jesus Christ [1] states through Smith that "a new and an everlasting covenant" of plural marriage is given, contains numerous Biblical references to and justification of polygamy, as well as the demand that Smith's first wife, Emma, accept all of Smith's plural wives, and warns of damnation if the new covenant is not observed. [2]
Just a note to involved editors to pay attention to basic talk-page discipline:
Follow these simple guidelines, and you will not only be more productive, you will have more fun as well.
See also: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is in the real world ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
After reading a recent edit in the article there is one question that I have: is 'Reformed Egyptian' recognized as a legitimate ancient language? Duke53 | Talk 01:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
After reading the highly entertaining article about the adventures of Joe Smith and his amazing success with the credulous - one question remains - where did Smith, with no apparent education or overseas travel- manage to find these apochraphyl documents? Did he journey to anywhere even remotely likely to contain documents in any form of middle eastern/egyptian provenance. Is it plausible to still believe, in the absence of any physical evidence at all - that anyone could 'find' golden plates under a hill in Pennsylvania - plates which contain references to previously unknown ancient languages? I thought we were supposed to try and have some sort of scientific/encyclopaedic detachment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fidelia ( talk • contribs) 05:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I have problems with the recent changes to this article. Besides the POV tone of the edits, all citations point to Bushman. It seems that the article is being shaped only by that source, which will result in an unbalanced article. Is it just me, or do others have the same thoughts? -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) (Talk) 02:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
My only other edit to this article since I've come back (AKA, in the past year or more) was the one on the Kirtland Safety Society. It can be found here. Let me know what you think.
Also, that's my bad: I had thought that the LDS-canonized version was from 1842. I guess I'll double check that one before I fix it.
Also, do you know if it's considered academically honest to use material that Bushman got from primary source documents (and cited), and then put in the citations to the primary source if I haven't actually looked at/fact checked the primary source myself?
Because (like I've said, I think), there's a lot of quality info in Bushman's work; it's much more non-biased and well-written than this article currently stands. I'd like to be able to incorporate more of it into this article, but I don't have any more works to cite. -- Trevdna 00:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I have reviewed the talk archives and I don't see any consensus for having changed the photograph and best likeness portrait to the current sculpture image. Can somebody enlighten me or support me in changing bach to the discussed images? The real ones aren't even in the article any more. Sigh. Tom Haws 23:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I found it here http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Joseph_Smith%2C_Jr.&oldid=144838556 (Cleaned up language, edited for readability and clarity.) Oh, yeah. And changed main picture. :-).
Fixing. The painted portrait would be fine by me. But not any other fanciful rendition. Tom Haws 23:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
See Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr./Archive 1. Tom Haws 23:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion, realism should trump artistic merit or iconography when depicting real people. I'd go with the photgraph. – SESmith 01:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, my preference is the painted portrait because it is a bit prettier and because JS III, who was 11 when his dad died, said it was the best likeness. That kind of cited reference is as real as you are going to get. Thoughts? Tom Haws 16:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I also like it because it is less likely to incite controversy. Tom Haws 18:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Bill recently undid a "bot" revert of a recent edit. I would urge us to reconsider that revert and look over the material involved. Some of the potentially deleted/changed material has long been in the article and has been heavily discussed. Some material removed or altered presents aspects of Smith's life that are open to criticism so, IMO, removing the material reduces the article's neutral POV. If I were to choose, I would initially revert back to my edit on August 18th and follow up with a solid review by several pairs of eyes. The article has received a lot of traffic in recent weeks with a lot of accumulated changes. Best............ WBardwin 21:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I have taken the liberty of inserting the actual wording from the Times and Seasons (1842) Aof as a substitution for the LDS edited version. I thought it was in better keeping with NPOV to use Smith's original wording. A Sniper 14:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
An anon user just came in and added several instance of "it is claimed" and "it is alleged" to the article. Isn't this really implied? Of course, all of what happened is what is alleged happened by Smith and his followers. So do we need this wording in the article? — Frecklefσσt | Talk 13:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
THIS ARTICLE has been written by a non-neutral party shame on you wiki please use all avaliable information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.246.111 ( talk) 08:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
It is bad enough that wiki allows a cult to post whatever they want but to also censor the talk page ia an absolute disgrace!!SHAME SHAME —Preceding unsigned comment added by Azzy777 ( talk • contribs) 03:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
It is completely absurd for anyone to mention NPOV in defense of this article. The entire thing is slanted. I presented 2 verifiable sources that show that the hieroglyphics Smith claim to have translated were incorrect. These sources are factual and you are trying to censor them because they expose the golden plates as fraud. The truth is neutral. Facts are FACTS ! I agree 100% : SHAME!! SHAME!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.95.219 ( talk) 05:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I did!
"Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikipedia principle. According to Jimmy Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable."[1]
All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and, as much as possible, without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources). This is non-negotiable and expected on all articles, and of all article editors. For guidance on how to make an article conform to the neutral point of view, see the NPOV tutorial; For examples and explanations that illustrate key aspects of this policy, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ."
Where is the word opinion given in the wiki definition of NPOV?? Maybe this is the trouble, no one here has read the real definition. That Joe Smith was a false prophet is a significantly expressed VIEW, one that I agree with and found ample supporting references. By and large Jews admit Jesus was a prophet, they argue about divinity, so this comparison is a red herring and not a real argument. If wiki editors decided some of these rant pages deserved entry, then they should go in. CARM is a significant source and not some rant page, imo. I am not aware than anyone has claimed any of Buddha's prophecies can be proven false, so again we have apples and oranges. My post conformed to Wiki's NPOV, imo, yet this article does not. Where is an editor's suggestion about how to make it NPOV? The simple fact is that I see no way that any mention of these 2 very valid and accepted references can be put here without bias deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.95.219 ( talk • contribs)
Speaking of tone, I would say that Juden has shown great restraint. Lecturing someone on wiki about "if I was your boss" is condescending at best. Claiming that someone could get more done by being nicer, when I see no impolite words or actions, also violates any defintion of proper tone that I am aware of. The simple fact is that Smith would not be a figure suitable for wiki entry if he did not buy those plates from an Irishman and tell people that he had translated the words of Abraham from them. Everything else is puff compared to reporting the truth about this incredible, unbelievable claim.
The very fact that these links ( http://www.carm.org/lds/ldspapyri.htm + http://www.irr.org/mit/Book-of-Abraham-page.html ) started such a firestorm of discussion is proof that references to them and an explanation of their major points belong in the main article. There is proof that the so called translations of hieroglyphics were nothing of the sort. Smith did not say he was inspired by the scribbles to tell a story, he claimed to have TRANSLATED them. Then the LDS tried to claim they did not exist once the rosetta stone was found and translation was possible. How can any NEUTRAL party claim that deleting any reference to these FACTS does not prove a NPOV violation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.95.219 ( talk • contribs)
???? I already did that 3 times. I did not come here to be patronized. I used the most credible references and provded a toned down version of both references.
http://www.watchman.org/cults/prophets.htm Here is a page which compares your hero to David Koresh with 10 striking similarities. There are 5 pages of google references BEFORE you get to the wiki page with completely sourced false prophesies!!
Prophecies_of_Joseph_Smith,_Jr.
He is also a star of another wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_prophet
The point is that this belongs here, in any NEUTRAL article about his life. To insist I should edit it some more is to blame me for it not being posted and to give legitimacy to all these biased deletions. I tried 3 versions of the same references and all were deleted without comment, as was my 1st comments here, in the obvious hope I would get the message and go away. Guess again. It was only after I made a complaint to the wiki editorial board itself that any comments survived. Am I to think this is coincidence? I have been through more than 1 wiki deletion debate and I am not afraid to defend what is right. Wiki is no one's personal sandbox. One group does not get to keep deleting the truth because it is inconvenient and to repeat the title to this discussion, that is it happening on WIKI is a SHAME!!!
If I am not mistaken Juden's logic above is that because the majority of people in the world are not Christian, then Christianity should be presented primarily from the stand point of being the false, misguided beliefs of a group that wants to make a god out of guy who lived 2000 years ago.
This is an encyclopedia; it is NOT a record of what the majority thinks! Please, spend significantly more time reviewing the purpose of Wikipedia because you have so completely lost all sense of its purpose as to become a hindrace to the objectives of Wikipedia. This is not about what the majority thinks; the majority has nothing to with it. It is about reporting facts regarding a given topic. That is very different from identifying "truth" as a individual might see things. Truth is a judgment call that editors do not make here.
It is too bloody obvious when talking about a given religion that only the adherents believe in said religion. Conversely, to state in the article that nonadherents don't believe in the religion is absurd. To state the obvious demonstrates one's stupidity. To insist that you "know" what is right repeatedly and yet no one listens to you is a sign of a problem. You might also want to spend some time review guide to writing articles. Regardless, thanks for the laugh tonight; this is almost too choice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Storm Rider ( talk • contribs) 07:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Again we have a misuse of statistics in some effort to claim what is happening here is the same as what could happen to Christianity in general. At its worst, another attempt to equate Joe Smith Jr in the same situation as Christ. Christianity is the largest religion in the world and Wiki comes from a continent with 75% Christians (
http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm) . When a religion and its views are in the minority, they can correctly be called a cult (
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cult). That is what I see here, especially definiion 6,
where Mormons still try to adhere to polygamy 6. a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader. Jesus started the only real church. This is the only fact that will remain on the last day. No one else will get to lecture people about who works for them and what kind of tone to use. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
69.114.95.219 (
talk)
15:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Why is there a need for more evidence? We are discussing the bias deletion of 3 of my posts, and 1 is linked at the top of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.95.219 ( talk) 16:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
The following sentence in the article seems to obfuscate what it is saying:
Juden reverted my simplification with:
So, I've created this specific subsection to discuss not the information, but the way that it is presented.
First of all, this sentence is rather long to say, "There is no compelling evidence that Joseph Smith had had sexual relations with any of these wives." Notice now my simplification is much more succinct.
Second of all, if this is meant as a quotation, there are standard ways in the modern English language to designate this, as shown above. Since this sentence does not use either one, then it is assumed that this is not a direct quotation and is therefore subject to editing, simplification in this case.
Noticed how long sentences are used to be more appealing to the editor to whom this discussion is directed. — Val42 16:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Juden, first give us the well-rounded references to demonstrate polyandry, then lay out a referenced foundation demonstrating Smith had sex with these women. I still have to wonder allowed with Cool Hand Luke why none of these relationships brought forth fruit, either via polygamy or polyandry - unless one historian, constantly quoted, is enough for an encyclopedia. Best, A Sniper 22:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
An article's lead should summarize it so well that it could stand along as a concise article in its own right, but lots of WP leads fail to meet this standard. This lead says: "Smith was, and remains, a controversial and polarizing figure within Christianity because of his religious and social innovations" Really? Which religious and social innovations? That information belongs in the lead. Could someone summarize what's in the body and put it here? Even a single sentence would do. Leadwind 14:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
There exists as far as I have surveyed an abundance of documentation of the fact that Joseph Smith was also a Free Mason. This is not even mentioned, let alone discussed, in the article. Should this issue not be addressed properly? __ meco 09:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I have been looking at the Notes and References sections and have started to think, maybe it should be cleaned up. the Notes section seems to be acting as the Reference Section... What is the clarity on this? Dbchristensen 15:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm reluctant to edit this article noting how even the smallest change can get heated opposition, so I'll bring it up here instead. I just read the recently edited "Translation of the Book of Abraham" section. While everything said there is factual, as far as I can tell, it is rather one-sided (and, therefore, not NPOV). Wouldn't it be appropriate to trim maybe one of the quotes (we get the idea after a couple) and add a short paragraph on the Church's position on the whole issue? I found this from the Ensign. Being an official Church publication, it probably does a good job of stating their position. Would it be appropriate to add this, or would it ruffle too many feathers? — Frecklefσσt | Talk 14:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
The quote from the Ensign article states that there is no red ink in the Joseph Smith papyri, which is clearly false, if you look at the images posted in the Book of Abraham article. The red texts are rubrics, according to [4], cited in the same article. While it's fine to record someone's opinion, clear factual errors in a quote should be noted. JoeFink ( talk) 15:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
"The Book of Abraham section is unbalanced and should be removed. The Book of Abraham is hardly a major teaching of Joseph Smith, a fairer treatment would include major teachings such as: open canon and revelation, priesthood, the Book of Mormon and the first vision. This section could fairly be moved into an article on the Book of Abraham but does not belong under the major teachings of Joseph Smith. 60.242.98.188 ( talk) 11:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
this whole article is replete with mormon bias (ESPECIALLY JS's sexual relationships). they (LDS) must have full time staff and church members dedicated to lying/twisting the truth about JS and his antics............I"m really disappointed. You can try and change things, but only in vain. They're VERY powerful, and seem to have won the day, on wikipedia at least.—Preceding unsigned comment added by ToyotaPanasonic ( talk • contribs) 07:52, 17 November 2007
I see the bit above that seemed to be a dicussion the went nova. I find it strange that anyone would question the idea that JSjr was a racist. I thought that was a universally held fact. Doing a search for Smith or mormons with the word racist or racism gives me a ton of hits. They are not crazy hits either. I thought most of the racism issues were about blacks but after reading what that guy wrote about indians it seems to just heep hay on the fire. The question is, is the above racist comment there because the editor, who I assume is a mormon, was taught it as a teaching of Smith or is he just a racist on his own with out the help of Smith. I know this looks like a personal attack but I mean go read what he wrote. I am quite surprised that the dicussion was even allowed to stay on the page. Way to go WIKI. At any rate, there is an issue here in regards to racism and it seems extremely notable to me to warrent inclussion in the article even more so then the huge section on plural wives. Islam has plural wives and most people do not treat that as a big deal. Racism is far outside of our modern day culture and ethics and many regard just the holding of racist thoughts as and act of terrorism or violence in and of itself. Something on the issue needs to be commented on even if it is to exhonorate Smith. There are facts out there all over the place. Let us get some and put them here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.127.251.137 ( talk) 06:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Just a little note, I was going to read this article, but then this creepy picture from screen right started staring at me. It turned me off reading the article. Does anyone have a less creepy pic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donnyj ( talk • contribs) 00:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree, this image is definitely unsettling. Though it is supposedly the "most accurate likeness" according to Smith's children. -- Grandpafootsoldier ( talk) 04:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
The recent edits by Renderdog have resulted in an unbalanced non-neutral presentation, and the article has been tagged accordingly. - Juden ( talk) 04:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Renderdog, I do not have access to the reference cited, I found the following: "During Joseph Smith's lifetime in particular, the prevailing views of Islam and Muhammad were also less than complimentary. An example of this can be found in an incident that occurred in October 1838. According to the Prophet, "Thomas B. Marsh, formerly president of the Twelve, having apostatized, repaired to Richmond and made affidavit before Henry Jacobs, justice of the peace, to all the vilest slanders, aspersions, lies and calumnies towards myself and the Church, that his wicked heart could invent."18 In this affidavit Marsh states, "I have heard the Prophet say that he would yet tread down his enemies, and walk over their dead bodies; and if he was not let alone, he would be a second Mohammed to this generation, and that he would make it one gore of blood from the Rocky mountains to the Atlantic ocean; that like Mohammed, whose motto in treating for peace was, 'the Alcoran or the Sword.' So should it be eventually with us, 'Joseph Smith or the sword.'" Marsh's statement directed at Joseph Smith serves as an indirect polemic against Islam."
I doubt you are going to find a source that says this is not supported, given that this souce states Joseph Smith himself repeats what Marsh said in affidavit. I think your position is on shaky ground; unless you can provide some definitive evidence your edit should be deleted. -- Storm Rider (talk) 05:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Since in the month since this interchange, no effort was made to correct the errors introduced by Renderdog and reinstated by Storm Rider, I have undertaken to correct them myself. - Juden ( talk) 05:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
It looked really shoddy. I tightened up the prose, condensed it into summary style. There was also a paragraph of other material, all of which was to be found elsewhere, and didn't belong in the death section at all. Finally, I moved the eulogies into their own section, as that really wasn't actually anything to do with his death, persay.
Actually, i think those eulogies reek of NPOV, but POV seems to be a touchy subject around here. Would anyone mind if I deleted them entirely? Storm Rider in particular, I'd like your opinion on this one.
-- Trevdna ( talk) 03:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, what do you guys think we should do with the part about his body? That one kind of has me stumped. -- Trevdna ( talk) 04:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Has anybody noticed that when one plugs the phrase "dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb" into the search tool, one is redirected to Joseph Smith's page? This is clearly a reference to the "All about Mormons" South Park episode, and I'd say it constitutes vandalism. I won't change it because things like this usually turn into an argument and frankly, I'd love to see where this goes. :D DDF Deepdesertfreman ( talk) 13:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I haven't made any contributions to this page in at least six months and I could not believe the evolution that took place in the polygamy section. Of the several paragraphs presenting evidence and references re: Smith's polygamous adventures, gone was the single paragraph that presented the alternate Joseph Smith III/RLDS/CofC perspective, with references. Now even Emma Smith's public and private statements that run contrary to the LDS line have been 'spun'. If Bushman is a reference, so should Joseph Smith III, etc. be included. In all fairness, what happened? With respect, A Sniper 04:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Joseph Smith started a highly criticized movement. He has been accused of being a cult leader/false prophet, and is thought such by a significant amount of people. yet there is no mention of it in the article. Also, much of the article is confusing, and seems contradictory Rds865 ( talk) 02:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
A criticism section should be added to the Smith article, instead of weasel words, implications, objections to every sentence before it... example: "In 1826, Smith was convicted of being a "disorderly person" and an "impostor" in a court in Bainbridge, New York.[11] However, details surrounding the case are still disputed by some historians.[12]" while some of this is fine, having to much 'Thing happened. People dispute that thing happened. Another thing happened. Historians dispute this too.' makes the whole article skew one way for pro-mormons and another for anti and to neutral people it seems like the article is unreliable. Building a criticism section, keeping all of the biography neutral and reserving negative views for that section should resolve these problems. Sanitycult ( talk) 18:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
The opening line of the article says the "Latter-day Saint Movement" is also known as "Mormonism". Are the other groups that trace their origin to Joseph Smith, namely the Community of Christ" comfortable with that? The term Mormon is usually associated with members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I'm a member of the latter but I want to be fair. Cambene ( talk) 04:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)CamBene
The online newspaper article that quotes something said at a speech is not the best information available. The CIA factbook, for example, only lists 1.7% of the US as LDS. That's 5.1 million. See: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2122.html If we add the rest of the world using a 3rd party source and get 13 million, I'm OK with that. But the source we have now is not reliable. Greenw47 ( talk) 21:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
There has been some back-and-forth over use of the word "persecution" to describe treatment of Smith. Let's keep in mind that he used this word himself [5]; it is not a modern interpretation or invention. It is perfectly fine to personally refute Smith and his teachings, but this article is about him and about his perceptions of his own life. It seems to me we can do no better than to report what he actually wrote down. Isaacsf ( talk) 18:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I am the person that keeps changing that term, and I think it violates NPOV. The reason for this is that the term persecution here is being used to reference legal issues that may or may not be related to his religious beliefs. As the facts surrounding this are not presented in the article for these incidents (ie that they are based on religious persecution) it is IN THIS PARAGRAPH AND CONTEXT (capitalization for emphasis on my point) a violation of NPOV to use the word "persecution" here. If you want to use that word at this point in the article, rewrite it to flesh out the paragraph and provide evidence of persecution other than to say "well that is what Joseph Smith said" in reverting an edit. Of course he suffered religious persecution by its wikipedia definition, but the use of that word at this point in the article is not NPOV. Hollowsphere ( talk) 19:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps someone else should change this then as it has been reverted to persecution based on 3RR (which I was not aware of as I never edit anything on wikipedia generally but do not really want to violate further at this point). Hollowsphere ( talk) 19:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Hollowshpere, don't worry about being perceived as a vandal. Typically it is better when you see one or two reverts to immediately go to discussion page and state your case. Too many of us, me included, make snap judgments without reading fully what is being done. This is an excellent example of just such a case. You were correct in your editing in the sense that something was wrong with language, but the solution was not as effective as it could of been. That solution is often attainable through use of the discussion page. Good luck and I hope to see more of you on this page. -- Storm Rider (talk) 20:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
The "To do" list at the top suggests pruning the categories. I removed the category "Christian missionaries", but WBarwin reverted it. I presume both of us are acting in good faith. I expect that most Wikipedia readers will have a concept of "missionary" that would exclude a person who stayed within his own nation, language, and culture to propogate his religion. Also, in the minds of many readers, the use of the word "Christian" in this category would have other associations. I will not enter in to a cycle of reverts, but this seems like a category that could be pruned with no harm. Pete unseth ( talk) 21:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
A further clarification to my comment just above-- Compared to Smith, a more prototypical example of "missionary" from the early LDS community would be by Marion Shelton, who went to the Shoshoni in 1859 to introduce his religion to them, crossing language and culture lines. I repeat my suggestion to prune this category from the long list of categories under for this aritcle. Pete unseth ( talk) 02:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
60.242.98.188 ( talk) 11:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Your insistence is growing and your recent edit to the "Warning" was just plain silly. I understand your position and I choose a different approach than the one you are proffering. You seem to be taking it personal and are resulting to inappropriate behavior. You will find that you will more often get your way by cooperating with others and seeking concensus, offering alternatives that are well thought out, and by listening to others. You have a good eye for editing and your continued efforts will be appreciated. However, if you continue to make silly edits that show a rather immature attitude you will not get far on WIKI. Oh, by the way, don't take the last comment personal; just look at my edit history and you will notice that I am quite capable of immature behavior also. It does not mean that we are idiots, but that we both are just very human. Storm Rider (talk) 05:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
How is this material relevant to the life of JSJ? He wasn't there, and it didn't directly affect his life in any way, shape or form.
Hello? Anybody there? Alright, I'll work on that, but if you don't like it, plz discuss before reverting. Thx.
(Mostly) to Ju66l3r:
My main goal with my edits was to reign in the size of this section, and removing details that were, in my eyes, extraneous. I double checked that anything that I removed was contained in the " Death of Joseph Smith, Jr." article, and in fact I added a fact or two to it, from this article. But the simple fact of this is that this section was (and now is) not succienctly summarized. "Details and quotations" which I removed were all (as far as I felt) not useful for the reading of the article. Smith has a lot of detail in his life, which, to the average reader of Wikipedia, it can get tedious to read all 66kb of it. Thus, I HIGHLY suggest that we streamline, basically to the barebones, this article. Kind of like I had done, but apparently you took exception to it.
I admit that the {{fact}} template may have been overboard, but a refernce there would still be nice - where could we find the text of that quotation? But even as it is, since it is included in the main article, then the simple statement "Violent threats were made against Smith and the Mormon community." should be sufficient, and then a hyperlink to the text of the Warsaw signal could be referenced. Or maybe the text itself should be referenced. Suggestions here?
For the general reference, here is my edit, and here is your revert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.121.173.56 ( talk • contribs)
Seeing as the "Major teachings" section is near one third of this article's total length, I feel that it should be broken out into a subarticle, with references left to his most basic teachings, and his most controversial teachings. Perhaps:
and leave the rest for anyone curious enough to visit the subarticles.
Any thoughts? Support? Disagree? Different choices for teachings to reference?
207.175.48.45 22:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I just removed the following from the text pending a review of its verifiability and reliability. Normally I would just use {{ fact}}; however, once this is put out on the wikipedia mirrors it will make online research much more difficult.
...collapsed four weeks after its opening and three months prior to a nationwide banking crisis. Many critics leveled accusations that Smith was actively misleading KSS members from the beginning of the financial enterprise as it was operating without an official Ohio bank charter and required specie reserves. On March 24, 1837 he was convicted in a Chardon, Ohio court of operating an illegal bank (Chardon, Ohio court records, Vol U, p. 362).
A quick serach of for this returned hundreds of hits, but none seemed related to Joseph Smith. I doubt its authenticity primarily because with the number of websites that normally come up when searching for negative information about Joseph Smith is normally very high. And since this purports to be such a irrefutable source (court records) I would expect it to be widely used. Any research assistance would be appreciated. -- Trödel 00:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Did you think to actually call the Chardon (not Chauncey, what is that?) court?. I can think of no more authoritative way to cite a court decision. Better than anything you'll find searching on a single site, sidneyrigdon.com, which is the source of 5 of the 6 citations you give that omit this fact. If it helps, it was mentioned in Brodie 1971, pg. 198. Please restore this text. -- Kbrewster 01:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
(Mostly) to Trodel: I'm sorry, but I can't see how you see my edits regarding Masonry and the First Vision as POV. I'm quite confused. I assure you that it is not my intention to insert POV material in this article. WOuld you explain to me please why you chose to revert my edits on a POV basis?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.121.173.56 ( talk • contribs)
Alright, here's my edit. I'll look for the citations later, but it should do for now; I know that I've seen the citiation for the second {{fact}} somewhere before, but the first one might not be right. I really feel that they ought to be in there, seeing as it is an important arguement of anti-Mormons (to my knowledge).
As always, please discuss on the talk page before reverting me, so I know what I did wrong. Thanks.
Alright, seeing as the previous discussion has gone inactive, and I would really like to see this happen, I would like to continue to discuss splitting the article.
We currently have in the article the following:
5 Major teachings
My proposal is as follows:
Step 1) Create new article, titled
Teachings of Joseph Smith, Jr.. It would be as follows:
Introduction (consisting, for now, of what is listed under the main section in Major Teachings)
1 Christianity
2 Nature Of God
3 Priesthood
4 Plan of Salvation
5 Families
6 The Book of Mormon
7 The Word Of Wisdom
8 The Law of Consecration
9 Temples
10 Major prophecies
11 Polygamy
12 Great Apostasy
Basically, a copy of what's here now.
Of course, that would be for starters; the point of making the new article is to allow greater expansion of content. Also, the order in which they are in doesn't seem logical to me, so we might want to reorder them.
Step 2) Leave in the current article as follows:
5 Major teachings (main section should consist of what there is now, probably minus the sentence on Wentworth letter, also probably plus a sentence explaining that herein lies much of his significance and controversy)
Because they are short enough (with the possible exception of polygamy), the text that is there now would remain on all of these sections.
My reasoning is as follows: this article is too long. Most people, looking for info on Smith, will not get to the bottom. We've tried to summarize his biography, but that can only go so far down. I think that we need to move these sections out.
According to WP:SIZE:
Some useful rules of thumb for splitting articles...:
> 50 KB Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)
(This article is 66kb.)
5 subsections (Christianity, Families, The Word Of Wisdom, Major Prophecies, and The Law of Consecration) and ~625 words would be removed from an article of ~6,750 words. (Note: In word counts, I have only counted the body of the article.)
There, I'm done. Now what do you guys (or girls too) think?
I have moved it to the "1827 - 1831" section of the article, seeing as it was orignially published with the BoM in 1830. If anyone could point to source saying exactly when it occurred (please?), then it could be put in the appropriate section chronologially. But Smith didn't even meet Cowdrey until 1829, so it is unlikely that the vision was before then!
I apologize to anyone I may have offended by adding some silly remarks to this article. I did so simply to see what would happen, as I'm new to this type of dynamic content. I did, however, make one change which I felt was wholly appropriate. I removed the category link to Category:Christian martyrs. There is already an appropriate category link to Category:Mormon martyrs.
Mormonism is considered heresy by mainstream Christian doctrine. Additionally, there are scores of martyrs throughout history who died for their unwavering commitment to traditional Christian doctrines. I cannot see how Smith's rejection of traditional Christianity would keep him in the category of "Christian Martyrs". If a Mormon rejected Mormonism to become Baptist, then died in a fight with some angry Mormons, I don't think you would consider him a Mormon martyr. By the same token, how can you consider the opporsite to be true?
Also, I don't believe one can make the case that Smith's death in a shootout with federal employees constitutes the death of a martyr, especially when one considers that it was Smith's practice of polygamy that drew the ire of the federal government in the first place. Smith's death transpired as a result of his commitment to this practice, rather than his commitment to Mormonism. Even if one were to argue that Mormonism is "true" Christian doctrine, I don't believe that Smith's death wouldn't qualify as a martyr's death.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.53.128.158 ( talk • contribs) .
I Completely agree with Storm Rider and COGDEN - the other thing to keep in mind here is that he didn't convert from being a baptist to being a Mormon. He wanted to reform or restore christianity, which is the same as many other christian martyrs - from Ignatius of Antioch to George Blaurock - both of which started their own denominations, if you will. These and others were seen as heretics at the time, but their ideas lived on and changed christianity. Smith is still seen as a heretic for the time being, but his ideas have changed christianity already. That said, for the purpose of wikipedia perhaps it is too close to his death to classify him as such - but he will someday - time will rule in his favor, IMHO. Even american history is starting to acknowledge his influence on law, slavery, settlement and city planning and more.
This is probably a talking point for a bigger discussion, however, there are a number of people listed in the christian martyrs category that probably shouldn't be there at all - for example - the Bonhoeffer family - they were killed not for their beliefs in Christianity, but because they joined an anti Nazi movement. Joan of Arc was killed for her military endeavors and for her claiming to have personal communion and revelation from God - which is still considered heretical by most non-catholic christians (and yet very similar to the reasons for Smith's death. Both claimed to be told by God to teach and say things that are still considered heretical). Dorothy Kazel was a missionary who was killed in a violent crime - not for her beliefs, but because she was giving support to guerrillas - her alleged rape and death was highly political in nature, not for her being a christian or her beliefs in christ.
What about to a non-Christain - how would they percieve it? If you are going to be universal about applying the term - it should be by the definition given in wikipedia - "a martyr is a person who dies for their convictions or religious faith." Add to that the wikipedia definition of a Christian: "A Christian is a follower of Jesus of Nazareth, referred to as Christ. Christians believe Jesus to be the Son of God, who lived a life befitting that of the creator of the universe, free of sin, who at the end of his earthly life was crucified, and then on the third day, rose from the dead, and later ascended into heaven. These beliefs are held by the vast majority of Christian denominations." Using those basic wikipedia definitions - he qualifies.
Since Smith's teachings fully agree with that ("The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it" -Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 121).), although some thought that his "deeper" interpretation of the bible was heretical, and he was killed for his religious convictions of how to practice what he deemed true christianity, then he probably qualifies more as a christian martyr than half of the people in the category. Or perhaps we should change the definitions of Christian and Martyr? Then again, as I stated above, it may be too soon to categorize him as such for another 50 years, but by the 200th anniversary of his death, I believe that the bulk of "christians" will consider him as such, especially if they consider folks like John Forrest (martyr), Charles Garnier (missionary) or others who died for political reasons, not for their religion. - Visorstuff 22:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I've heard it stated that Smith died in a shootout with federal marshalls, as well. I'm not certain of the authenticity of the claim, but I was told this by a Mormon missionary. He also stated that the Smithsonian had found direct evidence that Native Americans were one of the original tribes of Israel. This has proven to be completely false, so I'm not certain that the young man knew what he was talking about.
In terms of Smith's place in Christian history, I agree with the first anonymous poster concerning the category. Though there were true martyrs of the faith that were deemed heretics by other sects of Christianity, there were also legitmately labeled heresies that are still considered heresy by modern Christian scholars. The final call on this subject does not rest on the majority opinion, even the majority opinion of Christians, but upon the opinions and doctrines expressed in the Bible. As long as LDS doctrine stands in contradiction to these, it cannot be considered "Chrstian", regardless of what label the LDS church puts on it. I understand that Mormon belief does not consider the Bible to be the infallible word of God. But, it is the only source of Christian doctrine for nearly two millennia before Smith's birth. Stark contradictions to it cannot be deemed a legitimate part of it. By the same token, I would have a hard time describing Smith as a Christian martyr.
I understand that some of the Mormon readers are going to read this and say, "Whoa, our beliefs are not in contradiction to the Bible." But, they really are. Few Mormon missionaries or believers ralize how very, very far their beliefs are from Christian teachings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.110.50.190 ( talk • contribs)
'Sansifying' the South Park links. Completely irrelevant for an encyclopedia article (well, mayber other than 'SouthPark').
-- Coldblackice 02:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I say keep the South Park reference. South Park is a significant cultural critic, and they devoted considerable resources to an exposition of Joseph Smith's life. You may think their analysis biased or otherwise flawed, but they certainly deserve a bullet under the heading "In the modern media." I'm going to try to figure out how to revert it back in. -- Skidoo 00:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I deleted the contents of this page; due to the fact that I do not wish to create any controversy. I respect this human experience we are all having and do not wish to appear as one who discounts individuals who work hard discovering what good really is and how to; make the most from the least, and not as I was taught; to make the least from the most. Kisida 16:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Hey all, great to see the progress that this article has made since I left. It looks like it's approaching FA status, although there is still definately more work to be done. I notice, with chagrin, that the 1831 to 1844 section is stupendously disjointed and difficult to catch the flow of, and missing various important parts, and has several less important parts. And at least half of the references section is probably obsolete. And the "Bibliography" section and subarticle ( Works relating to Joseph Smith, Jr.) need work to look good. (Is it advisable to have a subarticle for the bibliography?? I don't think so.)
But beyond those glaring dificulties, this article looks incredible! If you don't see how far it's come, check out http://www.answers.com/topic/joseph-smith, http://www.theowiki.com/index.php?title=Joseph_Smith%2C_Jr.&redirect=no, or any other inactive Wiki mirror sight. You may be astounded at how primitive this article used to look.
Although I have stated that I would not edit this wiki, I do feel that these things are important, so I'll update the to-do list with what I see as necessary things to do here.
I am heartened by the progress which has been made in my absence, and hope that it is able ot continue. Please continue to work to improve this encyclopedia, and this article in particular. The world needs more truth regarding this great man. -- Trevdna 21:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Also see near the mob quote: "f... a...."
See the quote on the page about Joseph Smith:
"This theophany, Smith said in most of his accounts of the vision, included the voice and appearance of your mom, who forgave him of his sins."
Your mom?
(Mostly) to Zarahemlite: Your edit removed the word "controversial" in describing Smith in the first sentence of the article, with the edit summary "Don't agree with controversial wording". Would you please explain your reasoning? Because I was under the impression that the accepted consensus, both within this article, and the population at large was that Smith was VERY controversial.
From dictionary.com: "con‧tro‧ver‧sial –adjective 1. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of controversy; polemical"
and
"con‧tro‧ver‧sy –noun 1. a prolonged public dispute, debate, or contention; disputation concerning a matter of opinion."
He claimed that he had seen the Father and the Son at 14 years old. Claimed he had been called of God to reestablish the truth of Christanity. Claimed that he recieved revelations in direct opposition with mainstream Christian teachings, (which he called "abominations"). His character and integrity have been assaulted, both during and after his life. I could go on and on, but this is quite a lot. I would say that Smith fits this definition of "controversial" quite well.
For reference, here is your edit.
I believe this article is in need of substantial neutrality review. Pro-Joseph Smith editors have deleted virtually every edit that is critical of JS. The bottom line is that 99.5% of the world believes that JS was a con artist and fraud, but this page reads like he is a genuine religious leader. There is no mention of his arrest, no mention of his joining the Methodist church, very little mention of polygamy and his treatment of women and dissenters in the LDS movement, etc. Even if Mormons do not believe in many of the facts about JS, the fact these controversies should be discussed in a neutral fashion. A scroll through the history of the pages reveals that neutral-izing edits are quickly reverted, and most of the editors dedicated to the page spend all their time on Mormon-related pages. Put simply, this article needs substantial editing to present both points of view about Joseph Smith. Masonuc (20:33, 16 October 2006)
I have taken the liberty of removing the part on mob violence from this article, and moving it to the subarticle. My reasoning is twofold:
Despite these, however, this did include factual information which one could argue belongs in an encyclopedia. Thus, I chose to put it in the subarticle, rather than delete it entirely.
Excuse me, Storm Rider. I was unsure if your reversion of my deletion was accidental or not. (As there had been vandalism before me that was also reverted.) As it is now apparent that your reversion was not accidental, I will not edit the section in question until it is resolved here, on the talk page. I had no intention of beginning an edit war.
I felt that this section was not a central theme to Smith's life when I took it out. It would appear that you disagree with me. This boils down to a matter of perspective. Therefore, I would request other perspectives from other editors be voiced here, in order to help establish consensus. If it appears that other editors strongly favor the inclusion of the material in question, then I will gladly let this issue go. But if the consensus is that the section in question should be removed from the main article, then I hope that we can all accept the wishes of the majority.
I believe that the issue is best treated in a subarticle. Further, the section, as it now stands, refers to one particular instance of mob persecution, rather than the persecution that he suffered as a whole. And, while the persecution as a whole would probably be appropriate for the main article, I think that two paragraphs dealing with a single instance is excessive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.99.171.66 ( talk • contribs)
why are there different reference types?? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
130.127.137.188 (
talk •
contribs)
This article is totally biased in every way. Not only are the headlines slanted towards Smith and the Church, all of your sources come from LDS material or from biased sources. How about we rewrite this article in an UNBIASED slant, telling only historical facts both good and bad, not only the good things. You only added a few bad things that he was envolved in, and when you did you biasly slanted the report in a defense of Smith. Why are you so biased in everything, not everyone is perfect, and slanting Smith in this way is not only un-historical, but unethical. If you truly are a scholar, why not present things in an unbias manner? User:158.135.12.160
Storm Rider you really should take a break. Spend time with your children or something. Do your home teaching etc. There are serious issues with this article and will always be as long as people like you hover over it. Please try not and take that personal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.234.26.109 ( talk • contribs)
At first I thought I would just help people get editing right. Now I am more curious than anything else how much energy and time people will put it to go after me instead of just fixing the outlining and editing it correctly. I guess some people have stamp collecting and others have monitoring wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.139.244.193 ( talk • contribs)
I now go into oblivion. Mormons and anti-mormons will now be that much closer to learn how to write peer reviewed articles. Cheers mate! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.127.134.249 ( talk • contribs)
Why is there no mention of the 1826 trial in New York state? Like it or not, this is part of Smith's history that appears to be being ignored here. Duke53 | Talk 07:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Beg to differ, the case seems pretty open and shut to me: Joseph Smith Jr. was an imposter. Please read: http://www.xmission.com/~country/reason/ny_js.htm Apostle12 08:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
How can the wording "Church of Christ" be fixed in this article. The Church of Christ (Campbell) and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Smith) are two very separate entities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marrilpet ( talk • contribs)
The subsection entitled Myth of Joseph Smith killing two men at Carthage is adequately covered in detail in Death of Joseph Smith, Jr. and need not be repeated here verbatim. This is a very minor point, and this summary article cannot afford the bloat involved in going into such detail. Moreover, there are some NPOV problems. Therefore, I'm deleting it. COGDEN 21:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
"CyberAnth, the major reason is that there is no current history that conflicts with the Book of Mormon for that time period." --By that same token there is no history which contradicts the existence of unicorns and centaurs.
To lead with Smith being described as a religious leader and polygamist is NOT a POV violation. It is fact, and is well cited later in the article. It is no more POV to call him a polygamist than to call him a religious figure or an American or any other factual descriptive term. Smith is well known for being a polygamist and therefore it is perfectly legitimate to describe him as such. To call it a POV violation is to express a bias. Who is to say that polygamy is negative thing? It doesn't even necessarily paint Smith in a negative way - it all depends on your opinion of polygamy. But to deny that this is an accurate term to describe Smith is ludicrous, especially since it is fully explained later on in the article. It is not leading in any way towards any POV or bias. For example, if someone views religion as negative, then to call someone a "religious figure" could be construed as a leading-POV, and thus using the logic of some people on here, should be eliminated. Facts are facts - good or bad, Smith is known to many as a polygamist. This is an irrefutable fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.161.230.111 ( talk) 22:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
As an avid Wikipedia reader, I was surprised to read the paragraph below in an Enclyclopedia article. This makes the visit from the prophe Moroni sound like a proven fact, as well as the existence of a set of metal plates coming straight from God. I certainly find this shocking as a neutral observer, and suggest that editors rethink the wording of these and other paragraphs in this article to reflect the uncertainty of such claims and the leap of faith required to consider them authentic.
"In 1823 visitation from a resurrected prophet named Moroni[8] led to his finding and unearthing (in 1827) a long-buried book, inscribed on metal plates, which contained a record of God's dealings with the ancient Israelite inhabitants of the Americas. The record, along with other artifacts (including a breastplate and what Smith referred to as the Urim and Thummim), was buried in a hill near his home. On September 22, 1827, Smith's record indicates that the angel allowed him (after 4 years of waiting and preparation) to take the plates and other artifacts. Almost immediately thereafter Smith began having difficulties with people trying to discover where the plates were hidden on the Smith farm.[9]"
Charlie 81.107.35.207 ( talk) 14:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I was also surprised to read the passage below (from the 1827-1930 section), which seems to have the same issues. While it does cite the source, the statement itself does not follow the same POV as the rest of the article, which takes care to point out when something is as stated or written by those involved, including Smith. What I mean to say is, the article's POV doesn't seem consistent. I realize this may be difficult, as much of the information seems speculative or biased in nature.
"Before publication, Joseph was permitted to show the ancient record to other men. These men have recorded their personal witnesses of seeing an angel show them the record (plates), seeing the record, handling the plates, hearing the voice of the Lord command them to bear witness of the veracity of the record."
On another note, it seems strange that there is a separate article dedicated to this period of time in Smith's life. Should this be merged with the existing article? It only covers three years and this article seems to summarize it well, for the most part. If this issue has been addressed already I apologize, as I see there is an extensive archive and I'm relatively new as far as involvement in Wiki.
Garonyldas ( talk) 08:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Cambene ( talk) 03:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)CamBene
The unusual citation style used in this article makes it incredibly difficult to read. Why can't the normal WP <cite> tag be used? Fragglet 00:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone know if Joseph Smith was ever baptised into another denomination before his "revelations"? I seem to recall mention that there was a baptismal record entered for him in the Methodist Church when he was an infant, but I can't recall the source.
I reverted and thus deleted a quote supposedly from Hale today. It was just plopped into the article without any introduction. If one is going to introduce a quote, then it may easily be appropriate but taking a quote and introducing it, particularly when it is controversial, when be best. Additionally, why is Hale appropriate or worthwhile. Did he know any of the subject firsthand? No. Was it hearsay? Yes. What is the value of the quote? Possibly to describe how inidividuals felt about Joseph Smith. It is not, however, a quote about facts or reality, which the editor appeared to be using it. -- Storm Rider (talk) 16:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Any comments on how I divided the time periods? It seemed the most logical division to me, but we can always fiddle with the year boundaries. COGDEN 22:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Joseph Smith was shot before the Latter Day Saits Settled in Utah. So I don't know how he was a military force in the west. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.168.142.226 ( talk • contribs) 19:43, 16 January 2007.
I am new to WIKI so you can take this for what it's worth. I have also looked through some of the archives and have seen that there have been some heated debates over NPOV issues, so I will go ahead and say some of you might not like what I have to say. Here it goes anyway. In the initial summary of Joseph Smith I don't think it is a very NPOV to say that his "teachings were similar...to other false movements of his time". That is saying his teachings were false and you can not prove that with facts, anymore than anyone else can prove it is true. Saying it is false is very much a slanted point of view, as well as saying he was a con man with the statement "his ability to con what was to eventually become millions". Who can prove it was a con? You either believe him or you don't, So state the facts, but leave the opinions out. it is fine to say he was a contraversial figure, that is true. you can say he started a religion that would come to be known as mormons, that is also true and unbias. But some of these other statements are bias with the intent on pursuading readers, which I believe is not the intent of WIKI. I also would hesitate with the frequent use of the word "cult". I know the defenition of the word, and that technically there is nothing wrong with that statement, but there is an inherently negetive connotation in that word, again that would try to persuade the unbias reader. In the interest of NPOV I would suggest removing the "false" and "con" statements, and try to use a diferent word than cult. CHEERS! mookkick 04:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I think the article could do with more attention to fact. I began to reread the article today and I found several instances of conjecture and misstatement of fact. I am dismayed that we have not been more diligent about reviewing this article. The current article is not factual and carries with it a tone best left to religious tracts, but not for an encyclopedia. -- Storm Rider (talk) 21:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I am new to WikipediA, but in reading this article I found it some what biased towards trying to prove that Joseph Smith was a Christian reformer. It also seemed to gloss over facts about why his followers killed him. If this article is to be encyclopedic in nature then it should not claim Joseph Smith as an early Christian restorationist, unless there is proof that Mormonism is a Christian movement, which it is not generally accepted as. Also the article really needs to provide details on why his followers had become so disaffected that they killed him. Finally I hope I don't offend anyone, because that is not my intent. My only intent is to see an article that is NPOV and not biased 19th Century History-for-12 14:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Wow is the a bad article. The history of Joesph Smith is presented from only his reports, and he being a confivited felone. While most sentences at least have a "reportedly" or some such, other don't, leaving readers to believe statements made only by this man as factual. I think its a good example of the corrosive power of faith. Without faith, people search honestly for the truth, with it, people, well, write articles like this. (Talk)
"This article is watched by several stout LDS wikipedians who work hard to keep it accurate and NPOV." Does anyone else read irony in this statement? I think I'd like to watch a little more myself, never having being affiliated with Mormonism in any way. There's a long list of sources at Talk:Criticism of Mormonism that require their own articles to establish notability. Thought I'd give a headsup. ClaudeReigns ( talk) 07:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
On the issue of the relation of of Mormons with other Christians( Catholic, Protestant, Eastern Orthodox) is that the all the other Christians believe the Mormons are not true Christians, and Mormons think they are the only true Christians. Saying a Christian is a person who believes Jesus is Christ, is overlooking the fact that many of these disagreements is who Jesus is, and what Christ is. A Christian is a follower of Christ, if someone worships a false god and calls him Jesus, he is not a Christian.
Rds865 (
talk)
02:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I deleted an edit of today that stated the following:
First, it is unfortunate that the editor is either creating a myth or repeating it. Joseph's final words as he fell to the ground outside the jail were, "O Lord, my God!" (HC 6:618). When making edits of this caliber, editors would do well to document or reference their edits. It will clear up their own misunderstandings before making edits and it will also ensure that your edit has a much stronger probability of contributing something worthwhile. Cheers. -- Storm Rider (talk) 06:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
This is untrue. Joe Smiths last words were, "To hell with you dogmatic dumbasses! Let a man work a decent scam for a change!" I know this because Joe Smith was all about complete BS,and whatever he was thinking was his true words and it simply had to be something along those lines. Good Luck Dogmatic Sheeple!
As an aside, the probable misunderstanding comes from a lack of understanding of Masonry and fabriation of what Joseph Smith said. Both Taylor and Richards' accounts both report that as Smith fell from the window, he called out "Oh Lord, my God!" Some have noted this is similar to "Oh, Lord, My God, is there no help for the widow's son?", a traditional Masonic call for aid from fellow Masons (see Hiram Abif). These last recorded words have led to speculation that his statement was a call for assistance from any Masons that may have been in the mob, particularly by anti-Mormons. The problem I see with the allegation is how does calling out to one's God turn into a much larger statement. I recall reading even one Mormon woman that supported this allegation. Personally, I find it lacking. -- Storm Rider (talk) 06:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
The Latter Day Saints Biographical Encyclopedia also says that his last words were "Is there no help for the widow's son?" (Unsigned by anonymous editor)
This is one of the most biased pages I have come across on wiki. There is nothing that can be proven about any of these outrageous claims.
http://www.irr.org/mit/Book-of-Abraham-page.html
http://www.carm.org/lds/ldspapyri.htm Several REAL sources exist that are in stark contrast to the puffed up claims on this site. Without a balanced presentation of the evidence, then NPOV is very obvious, imo. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
71.167.127.176 (
talk)
02:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Would you like me to prove it to you? Joseph Smith said as he was shot and fell out the window "O Lord My God"! ---Matoro183 (Talk | Contributions) 02:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC) yes, I want a video tape of his death, with a recording of his words. they have to be submitted to a lab for verification. otherwise it is not proven. Rds865 ( talk) 00:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I leave for a few months, and I come back to look things over, and this article looks incredible! Great job everybody!
I really think that this article is almost ready for peer review, followed by a FAC.
A few things I see:
But seriously, great job everyone. A lot of the lingering issues that were present when I took my leave have been addressed, and I'm highly encouraged by what I see. Although I won't be actively working much on improving the article myself, I will be checking up more often on things.
-- Trevdna 00:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure if this issue has been taken up before but it seems only right to me that since Joe Smith wrote a lot of stuff about the people of America that were here before the Europeans that those people's view of him and what he said about them should me mentioned somewhere. As a Native American who believes myself to be resonabley well educated I would like to mention that most of what came from the hand of Joe Smith is considered by many in the tribe as very racist and ethnocentric. Almost the entirety of the Book of Mormon is dedicated to telling Native Americans about ourselves as if we did not already know. There is no Liturgical material to be found. Why isn't this mentioned in the article. It is a major issue from where I stand.-- Billiot 06:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Its not as if the site that "TrustTruth" posted was neutral either, it is just as biased, only on the opposite view point.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by KillinInTheNameOf ( talk • contribs) 14:48, 9 June 2007.
I am very conserned about some of these responces. One of the websites you pointed me to tells me that the reason I am not white is because I commited a SIN that will damn me to hell unless I become a Mormon. Excuse me!!! I followed a link from that site to another one that tells me that if I am a good enough Mormon I may miraculously change from Indian to White in the middle of service and gave accounts that some people had seen just this sort of thing happening. I do not want to be white. If becoming white is a side effect of Mormonism then there is clearly something wrong and very RACIST about the whole thing. Why is it not ok for me to not be White? Why is White good and not white bad? This seems to fit the definition of Racism to a tee. I began by asking simply about the book of Mormon penned by Smith but now I find myself with very deep conserns indeed. I had thought myself well versed in Mormon theology as it is something that I have studied at great length but this is outragous. When did this type of belief begin with the Mormons. If it began with Smith is definatly needs to be included in the article and exposed to the world.-- Billiot 04:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
What kind of reply is that? One ready made at Stromfront.com? Attacking me for asking a legitimate question is silly. Your response has no place in an area where we want to get to the factual base of things. How can you possible say that the Indians were not the first people of the Americas? What is wrong with you? I mean personally. It is true that the Indians did enjoy peace before the white man came. Now we have whites and with them Pollution, crime and disease. Why would I need to go to a blog to ask about a factual question of high importance that might should and might should not be included in this article? I know that many whites of Smith's time were very big racist but the point I am asking is was Joseph Smith. Many things in the book of mormon penned by Smith seem very racist to Indians, and then I see these site that go much farther into the racism. If mormons are racist and that is part of their religion then I see no reason why they would hide it or be ashamed of it. Catholics don't get divorced no matter how much hate is thrown at them. The reason is that Jesus who founded the Catholic Church taught that you can not get divorced. End of story for the Catholics. Now a days divorce is very popular but Catholics won't do it come what may. If the mormon church has recieved racism as a teaching from Smith and it is part of what they believe then why don't they show it to the world? If they really believe it to be right then they should show it to the world. I have studied mormon doctrine for a long time but it looked like they were going to put that kind of stuff behind them but now I see it coming back up. So tell me I am wrong. This noble savage is quite noble but isn't the same kind of savage that the whites have pictured and told all across history. I will not deal with those that will wrongly accuse me of being righously indignate. You are just plain wrong. I say for you to answer my request or stay out of a factual discusion. On another point, How dare you even begin to speak of primacy. I bed you don't even know what the word means and certainly couldn't decline it to from a reasonable sentence. I then ask again, what is wrong with you? I mean personally.-- Billiot 14:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I will no longer address the blatant racist that has so far seen fit to put messages on this site. I instead address anyone else who may come this way and ask them to read the above messages and judge accordingly. The Indians as a matter of pure, unequivical historical FACT were the first people to inhabit BOTH north and south America. Period. Period. Period. It is not a believe, it is a Fact. The Racist above has accused me of Trolling when he is the one throwing racial slurs at people. He hates me because I am not white and because I dare ask question that he does not want answered. Here is a sample of something else he has said.
In so writing he shows that he thinks all Indians to be blood thirsty savage beast unworthy of grace. I ask the Wikipedia community to centure this person. I will not address him. Notice that in all of this, he still refused to simply state up or down the racist character of Joseph Smith or the book of mormon which is what started all of this in the first place. If Smith and the book of mormon are not racist he had only to state it as such. It they are then why not state that as well. What does it really matter except a BETTER and MORE ACCURATE article which is WHY we are HERE in the first place. I found the additional information about racism in the mormon church by following one of the sited links above. It would seem that this really is a big issue with the mormons. If this is wrong and not really part of the mormon church then why not just say it. I leave it for everyone else to judge. I say it is blatant Racism. I will no longer have anything to do with this page and simply mark it off as always being inaccurate beyond my help. I now ask the community to judge who exaclty is violating standards. Is it the one who ask a question and didn't really get a satisfactory answer or the one who spouts racial slurs at another just for asking a question in the first place. How dare this person caution me or anyone else is my opintion. oh, and just so everyone knows, Primacy comes from Primus-a-um which is a Latin adjective that can be used as a substantive. Anyone who knows the correct use of the word would know that it need not belong in this argument. Go ask any historian or Indian who was in America first and you will get the same answer no matter who you talk to. Go ahead, think of it as a test. Only 100% RACIST do not accept that Indians were here first. -- Billiot 17:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Wasn't Joseph Smith either convicted or tried for some sort of magic/con artist type stuff? (Sorry if this seems flippant, but I read it on a website and can't remember the details.)
He was tried but not convicted (No Man Knows My History) by Fawn M. Brodie. He got in more trouble with the law later on for other things, like all the business in Missouri, but never was actually convicted of anything related to the treasure hunting. 171.66.37.236 21:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
According to Truman Madsen (mormon historian - source: joseph smith lectures) the notion that he was never found guilty is not accurate. He was found guilty on one occasion of casting out devils, but, as the judge noted, since there was no statute against that he would have to be set free. Perhaps another article "the legal trials of Joseph Smith" would be better here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.214.17.17 ( talk) 06:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
This entire article looks like it was written by Mormons. It's organized into epochs, rather than by points of inquiry. There's no critique, no mention of important discrepancies between what Mormon leaders claim and what the facts show, etc., etc. Smith was a charlatan, and a con artist, and it's quite likely that starting the Mormon religion was just his most successful con game. These aren't just opinions; they're facts, backed up by the evidence. Someone needs to do a major re-write, and then lock this article down before the entire state of Utah has a chance to attack it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.172.104 ( talk • contribs) 00:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
This article states that Rigdon formed his church in Greensbug, but I believe it was actually in Monongahela. The current headquarters is in Greensburg, but I'm pretty sure that wasn't where it was originally formed. The article on Sidney Rigdon states the headquarters in Monongahela, which is what I originally heard. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) (Talk) 21:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Rigdon's organization was never in monongahela or greensburg. His organization was based out of Pittsburgh. You are confusing Rigdon's organization with that of The Church of Jesus Christ which is currently headquarted in Monongahela, Pa. and has it's world conference center in Greensburg, Pa. JRN 18:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Wasn't his running mate Brigham Young?
Answer: NO
Very telling and relevant information was for some reason taken out of the article here: [3]. The above category has also been added to reflect the majority prevailing assessment of the subject from historians and the testimony of many of his 'marks' - including the statements referenced above and his numerous temporary female sexual partners (see other wiki articles on his polygamy).
It does seem rather unbalanced to not at least have this included alongside more questionable categorisations such as Category:Prophets
Any other ideas how we can broaden the coverage to be representing all the perspectives that are notable on this subject? The 'Stafford Testimonials' witness statements should not have been taken out, but rather summarised and referred to in the appropriate place in the article as well as its sub-articles. Please see to that. Otherwise we lay ourselves open to the charge of being 'dogmatic sheeple' on this subject.
The below is my response to a new editor, User:Écrasez l'infâme placed on his/her talk page. I will now revert, once again. WBardwin 19:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Écrasez l'infâme 20:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)Such claims that he didn't teach or practice plurality of wives are further called disputed through the official publication in Utah of Doctrine and Covenants Section 132, although this did not take place until almost a decade after Smith's death when the revelation was made public and published. This revelation, in which Jesus Christ [1] states through Smith that "a new and an everlasting covenant" of plural marriage is given, contains numerous Biblical references to and justification of polygamy, as well as the demand that Smith's first wife, Emma, accept all of Smith's plural wives, and warns of damnation if the new covenant is not observed. [2]
Just a note to involved editors to pay attention to basic talk-page discipline:
Follow these simple guidelines, and you will not only be more productive, you will have more fun as well.
See also: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is in the real world ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
After reading a recent edit in the article there is one question that I have: is 'Reformed Egyptian' recognized as a legitimate ancient language? Duke53 | Talk 01:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
After reading the highly entertaining article about the adventures of Joe Smith and his amazing success with the credulous - one question remains - where did Smith, with no apparent education or overseas travel- manage to find these apochraphyl documents? Did he journey to anywhere even remotely likely to contain documents in any form of middle eastern/egyptian provenance. Is it plausible to still believe, in the absence of any physical evidence at all - that anyone could 'find' golden plates under a hill in Pennsylvania - plates which contain references to previously unknown ancient languages? I thought we were supposed to try and have some sort of scientific/encyclopaedic detachment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fidelia ( talk • contribs) 05:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I have problems with the recent changes to this article. Besides the POV tone of the edits, all citations point to Bushman. It seems that the article is being shaped only by that source, which will result in an unbalanced article. Is it just me, or do others have the same thoughts? -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) (Talk) 02:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
My only other edit to this article since I've come back (AKA, in the past year or more) was the one on the Kirtland Safety Society. It can be found here. Let me know what you think.
Also, that's my bad: I had thought that the LDS-canonized version was from 1842. I guess I'll double check that one before I fix it.
Also, do you know if it's considered academically honest to use material that Bushman got from primary source documents (and cited), and then put in the citations to the primary source if I haven't actually looked at/fact checked the primary source myself?
Because (like I've said, I think), there's a lot of quality info in Bushman's work; it's much more non-biased and well-written than this article currently stands. I'd like to be able to incorporate more of it into this article, but I don't have any more works to cite. -- Trevdna 00:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I have reviewed the talk archives and I don't see any consensus for having changed the photograph and best likeness portrait to the current sculpture image. Can somebody enlighten me or support me in changing bach to the discussed images? The real ones aren't even in the article any more. Sigh. Tom Haws 23:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I found it here http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Joseph_Smith%2C_Jr.&oldid=144838556 (Cleaned up language, edited for readability and clarity.) Oh, yeah. And changed main picture. :-).
Fixing. The painted portrait would be fine by me. But not any other fanciful rendition. Tom Haws 23:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
See Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr./Archive 1. Tom Haws 23:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion, realism should trump artistic merit or iconography when depicting real people. I'd go with the photgraph. – SESmith 01:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, my preference is the painted portrait because it is a bit prettier and because JS III, who was 11 when his dad died, said it was the best likeness. That kind of cited reference is as real as you are going to get. Thoughts? Tom Haws 16:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I also like it because it is less likely to incite controversy. Tom Haws 18:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Bill recently undid a "bot" revert of a recent edit. I would urge us to reconsider that revert and look over the material involved. Some of the potentially deleted/changed material has long been in the article and has been heavily discussed. Some material removed or altered presents aspects of Smith's life that are open to criticism so, IMO, removing the material reduces the article's neutral POV. If I were to choose, I would initially revert back to my edit on August 18th and follow up with a solid review by several pairs of eyes. The article has received a lot of traffic in recent weeks with a lot of accumulated changes. Best............ WBardwin 21:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I have taken the liberty of inserting the actual wording from the Times and Seasons (1842) Aof as a substitution for the LDS edited version. I thought it was in better keeping with NPOV to use Smith's original wording. A Sniper 14:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
An anon user just came in and added several instance of "it is claimed" and "it is alleged" to the article. Isn't this really implied? Of course, all of what happened is what is alleged happened by Smith and his followers. So do we need this wording in the article? — Frecklefσσt | Talk 13:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
THIS ARTICLE has been written by a non-neutral party shame on you wiki please use all avaliable information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.246.111 ( talk) 08:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
It is bad enough that wiki allows a cult to post whatever they want but to also censor the talk page ia an absolute disgrace!!SHAME SHAME —Preceding unsigned comment added by Azzy777 ( talk • contribs) 03:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
It is completely absurd for anyone to mention NPOV in defense of this article. The entire thing is slanted. I presented 2 verifiable sources that show that the hieroglyphics Smith claim to have translated were incorrect. These sources are factual and you are trying to censor them because they expose the golden plates as fraud. The truth is neutral. Facts are FACTS ! I agree 100% : SHAME!! SHAME!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.95.219 ( talk) 05:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I did!
"Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikipedia principle. According to Jimmy Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable."[1]
All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and, as much as possible, without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources). This is non-negotiable and expected on all articles, and of all article editors. For guidance on how to make an article conform to the neutral point of view, see the NPOV tutorial; For examples and explanations that illustrate key aspects of this policy, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ."
Where is the word opinion given in the wiki definition of NPOV?? Maybe this is the trouble, no one here has read the real definition. That Joe Smith was a false prophet is a significantly expressed VIEW, one that I agree with and found ample supporting references. By and large Jews admit Jesus was a prophet, they argue about divinity, so this comparison is a red herring and not a real argument. If wiki editors decided some of these rant pages deserved entry, then they should go in. CARM is a significant source and not some rant page, imo. I am not aware than anyone has claimed any of Buddha's prophecies can be proven false, so again we have apples and oranges. My post conformed to Wiki's NPOV, imo, yet this article does not. Where is an editor's suggestion about how to make it NPOV? The simple fact is that I see no way that any mention of these 2 very valid and accepted references can be put here without bias deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.95.219 ( talk • contribs)
Speaking of tone, I would say that Juden has shown great restraint. Lecturing someone on wiki about "if I was your boss" is condescending at best. Claiming that someone could get more done by being nicer, when I see no impolite words or actions, also violates any defintion of proper tone that I am aware of. The simple fact is that Smith would not be a figure suitable for wiki entry if he did not buy those plates from an Irishman and tell people that he had translated the words of Abraham from them. Everything else is puff compared to reporting the truth about this incredible, unbelievable claim.
The very fact that these links ( http://www.carm.org/lds/ldspapyri.htm + http://www.irr.org/mit/Book-of-Abraham-page.html ) started such a firestorm of discussion is proof that references to them and an explanation of their major points belong in the main article. There is proof that the so called translations of hieroglyphics were nothing of the sort. Smith did not say he was inspired by the scribbles to tell a story, he claimed to have TRANSLATED them. Then the LDS tried to claim they did not exist once the rosetta stone was found and translation was possible. How can any NEUTRAL party claim that deleting any reference to these FACTS does not prove a NPOV violation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.95.219 ( talk • contribs)
???? I already did that 3 times. I did not come here to be patronized. I used the most credible references and provded a toned down version of both references.
http://www.watchman.org/cults/prophets.htm Here is a page which compares your hero to David Koresh with 10 striking similarities. There are 5 pages of google references BEFORE you get to the wiki page with completely sourced false prophesies!!
Prophecies_of_Joseph_Smith,_Jr.
He is also a star of another wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_prophet
The point is that this belongs here, in any NEUTRAL article about his life. To insist I should edit it some more is to blame me for it not being posted and to give legitimacy to all these biased deletions. I tried 3 versions of the same references and all were deleted without comment, as was my 1st comments here, in the obvious hope I would get the message and go away. Guess again. It was only after I made a complaint to the wiki editorial board itself that any comments survived. Am I to think this is coincidence? I have been through more than 1 wiki deletion debate and I am not afraid to defend what is right. Wiki is no one's personal sandbox. One group does not get to keep deleting the truth because it is inconvenient and to repeat the title to this discussion, that is it happening on WIKI is a SHAME!!!
If I am not mistaken Juden's logic above is that because the majority of people in the world are not Christian, then Christianity should be presented primarily from the stand point of being the false, misguided beliefs of a group that wants to make a god out of guy who lived 2000 years ago.
This is an encyclopedia; it is NOT a record of what the majority thinks! Please, spend significantly more time reviewing the purpose of Wikipedia because you have so completely lost all sense of its purpose as to become a hindrace to the objectives of Wikipedia. This is not about what the majority thinks; the majority has nothing to with it. It is about reporting facts regarding a given topic. That is very different from identifying "truth" as a individual might see things. Truth is a judgment call that editors do not make here.
It is too bloody obvious when talking about a given religion that only the adherents believe in said religion. Conversely, to state in the article that nonadherents don't believe in the religion is absurd. To state the obvious demonstrates one's stupidity. To insist that you "know" what is right repeatedly and yet no one listens to you is a sign of a problem. You might also want to spend some time review guide to writing articles. Regardless, thanks for the laugh tonight; this is almost too choice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Storm Rider ( talk • contribs) 07:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Again we have a misuse of statistics in some effort to claim what is happening here is the same as what could happen to Christianity in general. At its worst, another attempt to equate Joe Smith Jr in the same situation as Christ. Christianity is the largest religion in the world and Wiki comes from a continent with 75% Christians (
http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm) . When a religion and its views are in the minority, they can correctly be called a cult (
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cult). That is what I see here, especially definiion 6,
where Mormons still try to adhere to polygamy 6. a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader. Jesus started the only real church. This is the only fact that will remain on the last day. No one else will get to lecture people about who works for them and what kind of tone to use. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
69.114.95.219 (
talk)
15:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Why is there a need for more evidence? We are discussing the bias deletion of 3 of my posts, and 1 is linked at the top of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.95.219 ( talk) 16:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
The following sentence in the article seems to obfuscate what it is saying:
Juden reverted my simplification with:
So, I've created this specific subsection to discuss not the information, but the way that it is presented.
First of all, this sentence is rather long to say, "There is no compelling evidence that Joseph Smith had had sexual relations with any of these wives." Notice now my simplification is much more succinct.
Second of all, if this is meant as a quotation, there are standard ways in the modern English language to designate this, as shown above. Since this sentence does not use either one, then it is assumed that this is not a direct quotation and is therefore subject to editing, simplification in this case.
Noticed how long sentences are used to be more appealing to the editor to whom this discussion is directed. — Val42 16:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Juden, first give us the well-rounded references to demonstrate polyandry, then lay out a referenced foundation demonstrating Smith had sex with these women. I still have to wonder allowed with Cool Hand Luke why none of these relationships brought forth fruit, either via polygamy or polyandry - unless one historian, constantly quoted, is enough for an encyclopedia. Best, A Sniper 22:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
An article's lead should summarize it so well that it could stand along as a concise article in its own right, but lots of WP leads fail to meet this standard. This lead says: "Smith was, and remains, a controversial and polarizing figure within Christianity because of his religious and social innovations" Really? Which religious and social innovations? That information belongs in the lead. Could someone summarize what's in the body and put it here? Even a single sentence would do. Leadwind 14:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
There exists as far as I have surveyed an abundance of documentation of the fact that Joseph Smith was also a Free Mason. This is not even mentioned, let alone discussed, in the article. Should this issue not be addressed properly? __ meco 09:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I have been looking at the Notes and References sections and have started to think, maybe it should be cleaned up. the Notes section seems to be acting as the Reference Section... What is the clarity on this? Dbchristensen 15:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm reluctant to edit this article noting how even the smallest change can get heated opposition, so I'll bring it up here instead. I just read the recently edited "Translation of the Book of Abraham" section. While everything said there is factual, as far as I can tell, it is rather one-sided (and, therefore, not NPOV). Wouldn't it be appropriate to trim maybe one of the quotes (we get the idea after a couple) and add a short paragraph on the Church's position on the whole issue? I found this from the Ensign. Being an official Church publication, it probably does a good job of stating their position. Would it be appropriate to add this, or would it ruffle too many feathers? — Frecklefσσt | Talk 14:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
The quote from the Ensign article states that there is no red ink in the Joseph Smith papyri, which is clearly false, if you look at the images posted in the Book of Abraham article. The red texts are rubrics, according to [4], cited in the same article. While it's fine to record someone's opinion, clear factual errors in a quote should be noted. JoeFink ( talk) 15:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
"The Book of Abraham section is unbalanced and should be removed. The Book of Abraham is hardly a major teaching of Joseph Smith, a fairer treatment would include major teachings such as: open canon and revelation, priesthood, the Book of Mormon and the first vision. This section could fairly be moved into an article on the Book of Abraham but does not belong under the major teachings of Joseph Smith. 60.242.98.188 ( talk) 11:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
this whole article is replete with mormon bias (ESPECIALLY JS's sexual relationships). they (LDS) must have full time staff and church members dedicated to lying/twisting the truth about JS and his antics............I"m really disappointed. You can try and change things, but only in vain. They're VERY powerful, and seem to have won the day, on wikipedia at least.—Preceding unsigned comment added by ToyotaPanasonic ( talk • contribs) 07:52, 17 November 2007
I see the bit above that seemed to be a dicussion the went nova. I find it strange that anyone would question the idea that JSjr was a racist. I thought that was a universally held fact. Doing a search for Smith or mormons with the word racist or racism gives me a ton of hits. They are not crazy hits either. I thought most of the racism issues were about blacks but after reading what that guy wrote about indians it seems to just heep hay on the fire. The question is, is the above racist comment there because the editor, who I assume is a mormon, was taught it as a teaching of Smith or is he just a racist on his own with out the help of Smith. I know this looks like a personal attack but I mean go read what he wrote. I am quite surprised that the dicussion was even allowed to stay on the page. Way to go WIKI. At any rate, there is an issue here in regards to racism and it seems extremely notable to me to warrent inclussion in the article even more so then the huge section on plural wives. Islam has plural wives and most people do not treat that as a big deal. Racism is far outside of our modern day culture and ethics and many regard just the holding of racist thoughts as and act of terrorism or violence in and of itself. Something on the issue needs to be commented on even if it is to exhonorate Smith. There are facts out there all over the place. Let us get some and put them here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.127.251.137 ( talk) 06:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Just a little note, I was going to read this article, but then this creepy picture from screen right started staring at me. It turned me off reading the article. Does anyone have a less creepy pic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donnyj ( talk • contribs) 00:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree, this image is definitely unsettling. Though it is supposedly the "most accurate likeness" according to Smith's children. -- Grandpafootsoldier ( talk) 04:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
The recent edits by Renderdog have resulted in an unbalanced non-neutral presentation, and the article has been tagged accordingly. - Juden ( talk) 04:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Renderdog, I do not have access to the reference cited, I found the following: "During Joseph Smith's lifetime in particular, the prevailing views of Islam and Muhammad were also less than complimentary. An example of this can be found in an incident that occurred in October 1838. According to the Prophet, "Thomas B. Marsh, formerly president of the Twelve, having apostatized, repaired to Richmond and made affidavit before Henry Jacobs, justice of the peace, to all the vilest slanders, aspersions, lies and calumnies towards myself and the Church, that his wicked heart could invent."18 In this affidavit Marsh states, "I have heard the Prophet say that he would yet tread down his enemies, and walk over their dead bodies; and if he was not let alone, he would be a second Mohammed to this generation, and that he would make it one gore of blood from the Rocky mountains to the Atlantic ocean; that like Mohammed, whose motto in treating for peace was, 'the Alcoran or the Sword.' So should it be eventually with us, 'Joseph Smith or the sword.'" Marsh's statement directed at Joseph Smith serves as an indirect polemic against Islam."
I doubt you are going to find a source that says this is not supported, given that this souce states Joseph Smith himself repeats what Marsh said in affidavit. I think your position is on shaky ground; unless you can provide some definitive evidence your edit should be deleted. -- Storm Rider (talk) 05:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Since in the month since this interchange, no effort was made to correct the errors introduced by Renderdog and reinstated by Storm Rider, I have undertaken to correct them myself. - Juden ( talk) 05:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
It looked really shoddy. I tightened up the prose, condensed it into summary style. There was also a paragraph of other material, all of which was to be found elsewhere, and didn't belong in the death section at all. Finally, I moved the eulogies into their own section, as that really wasn't actually anything to do with his death, persay.
Actually, i think those eulogies reek of NPOV, but POV seems to be a touchy subject around here. Would anyone mind if I deleted them entirely? Storm Rider in particular, I'd like your opinion on this one.
-- Trevdna ( talk) 03:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, what do you guys think we should do with the part about his body? That one kind of has me stumped. -- Trevdna ( talk) 04:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Has anybody noticed that when one plugs the phrase "dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb" into the search tool, one is redirected to Joseph Smith's page? This is clearly a reference to the "All about Mormons" South Park episode, and I'd say it constitutes vandalism. I won't change it because things like this usually turn into an argument and frankly, I'd love to see where this goes. :D DDF Deepdesertfreman ( talk) 13:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I haven't made any contributions to this page in at least six months and I could not believe the evolution that took place in the polygamy section. Of the several paragraphs presenting evidence and references re: Smith's polygamous adventures, gone was the single paragraph that presented the alternate Joseph Smith III/RLDS/CofC perspective, with references. Now even Emma Smith's public and private statements that run contrary to the LDS line have been 'spun'. If Bushman is a reference, so should Joseph Smith III, etc. be included. In all fairness, what happened? With respect, A Sniper 04:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Joseph Smith started a highly criticized movement. He has been accused of being a cult leader/false prophet, and is thought such by a significant amount of people. yet there is no mention of it in the article. Also, much of the article is confusing, and seems contradictory Rds865 ( talk) 02:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
A criticism section should be added to the Smith article, instead of weasel words, implications, objections to every sentence before it... example: "In 1826, Smith was convicted of being a "disorderly person" and an "impostor" in a court in Bainbridge, New York.[11] However, details surrounding the case are still disputed by some historians.[12]" while some of this is fine, having to much 'Thing happened. People dispute that thing happened. Another thing happened. Historians dispute this too.' makes the whole article skew one way for pro-mormons and another for anti and to neutral people it seems like the article is unreliable. Building a criticism section, keeping all of the biography neutral and reserving negative views for that section should resolve these problems. Sanitycult ( talk) 18:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
The opening line of the article says the "Latter-day Saint Movement" is also known as "Mormonism". Are the other groups that trace their origin to Joseph Smith, namely the Community of Christ" comfortable with that? The term Mormon is usually associated with members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I'm a member of the latter but I want to be fair. Cambene ( talk) 04:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)CamBene
The online newspaper article that quotes something said at a speech is not the best information available. The CIA factbook, for example, only lists 1.7% of the US as LDS. That's 5.1 million. See: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2122.html If we add the rest of the world using a 3rd party source and get 13 million, I'm OK with that. But the source we have now is not reliable. Greenw47 ( talk) 21:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
There has been some back-and-forth over use of the word "persecution" to describe treatment of Smith. Let's keep in mind that he used this word himself [5]; it is not a modern interpretation or invention. It is perfectly fine to personally refute Smith and his teachings, but this article is about him and about his perceptions of his own life. It seems to me we can do no better than to report what he actually wrote down. Isaacsf ( talk) 18:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I am the person that keeps changing that term, and I think it violates NPOV. The reason for this is that the term persecution here is being used to reference legal issues that may or may not be related to his religious beliefs. As the facts surrounding this are not presented in the article for these incidents (ie that they are based on religious persecution) it is IN THIS PARAGRAPH AND CONTEXT (capitalization for emphasis on my point) a violation of NPOV to use the word "persecution" here. If you want to use that word at this point in the article, rewrite it to flesh out the paragraph and provide evidence of persecution other than to say "well that is what Joseph Smith said" in reverting an edit. Of course he suffered religious persecution by its wikipedia definition, but the use of that word at this point in the article is not NPOV. Hollowsphere ( talk) 19:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps someone else should change this then as it has been reverted to persecution based on 3RR (which I was not aware of as I never edit anything on wikipedia generally but do not really want to violate further at this point). Hollowsphere ( talk) 19:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Hollowshpere, don't worry about being perceived as a vandal. Typically it is better when you see one or two reverts to immediately go to discussion page and state your case. Too many of us, me included, make snap judgments without reading fully what is being done. This is an excellent example of just such a case. You were correct in your editing in the sense that something was wrong with language, but the solution was not as effective as it could of been. That solution is often attainable through use of the discussion page. Good luck and I hope to see more of you on this page. -- Storm Rider (talk) 20:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
The "To do" list at the top suggests pruning the categories. I removed the category "Christian missionaries", but WBarwin reverted it. I presume both of us are acting in good faith. I expect that most Wikipedia readers will have a concept of "missionary" that would exclude a person who stayed within his own nation, language, and culture to propogate his religion. Also, in the minds of many readers, the use of the word "Christian" in this category would have other associations. I will not enter in to a cycle of reverts, but this seems like a category that could be pruned with no harm. Pete unseth ( talk) 21:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
A further clarification to my comment just above-- Compared to Smith, a more prototypical example of "missionary" from the early LDS community would be by Marion Shelton, who went to the Shoshoni in 1859 to introduce his religion to them, crossing language and culture lines. I repeat my suggestion to prune this category from the long list of categories under for this aritcle. Pete unseth ( talk) 02:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
60.242.98.188 ( talk) 11:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)