![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 20 |
Reviewing these sections, may I make a few comments?
Would it be worthwhile to include a quick mention of the Golden plates#Unsuccessful retrieval attempts? This could further illustrate how JSJr acknowledged his own 'treasure hunting' and considered it to have initially impeded him from receiving the plates (assuming the quotations used in that article are authoritative).
The brief mentions of the Urim and Thummim somewhat confusing. Wasn't the breastplate mentioned in the "Golden Plates" section, part of the urim and thummim, or attached to it? These seer stones are also considered by the Latter-day Saints to be bound into a set of spectacles. The article states that he put the seer stones in the bottom of his hat, but not all the sources cited agreed that they were 'in the bottom of his hat' (I wonder if the stones detached from the spectacles or something). I also wonder about the credibility of the quotes given, were they first-hand witnesses? Some obviously were. Despite the ambiguity of the historicity of the situation, I think these brief references to the Urim and Thummim could be expressed better.
And finally, have you seen how many of the citations are Bushman? Or how many times the article states: "According to Bushman..." No matter how great of a source Bushman may be, the article becomes Bushman's article if we are always citing him. This isn't an article on Bushman. I think some items could easily be re-referenced, without needing to change the text at all. For example: 'According to Richard Bushman, "From then on, Joseph's life revolved around the plates."' It seems obvious from the later-given fact that he "dictated most of the Book of Mormon to Cowdery between early April and late June" that he was absorbed in the plates. Whether Bushman was trying to indicate that this period of his life revolved around the plates, or if he was implying that the entire rest of his life had changed direction because of the plates, there are probably many other sources we could find that would say the same thing.
I haven't changed anything in the article yet but do invite others to act upon my suggestions as they see fit, according to consensus. Also note that the two articles I linked to in this comment seem to be somewhat one-sided supporting the general LDS view at the moment. -- B F izz ( e• t• c) 07:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
More sources are generally better than fewer, so I think we should leave Bushman and add other refs. On stability ... Though we are all grateful for the removal of vandalism, how are changes supposed to stick if we undo everything that isn't written by ourselves!? As a newcomer, I worry 'stability' might just be a euphemism for 'protracted edit war.' However, because there is basically a good narrative flow to the article, we should generally have more discussion than less to prevent mangling the good parts.-- Adlib24 ( talk) 19:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I've made some changes to the "Book of Mormon" section, please be so kind as to review the changes. There remain, if I counted correctly, 8 direct quotations from Bushman in the text of the article, which, in my opinion, is too much. Several of the quotations are prosy and don't really communicate anything about JSJr, but rather Bushman's opinion or impression of him. I figured before removing the following two quotations I should check for consensus:
My point is that Bushman is one person, and perhaps when the article is using "according to Bushman" it should really refer to a relevent group affected by Smith. Bushman in and of himself cannot represent such groups. —Preceding unsigned comment added by B Fizz ( talk • contribs) 21:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Since the section doesn't deal directly with Smith, I propose that we reduce the "succession" material significantly. Minimal information about Strang, Joseph III, Young, and perhaps Rigdon should suffice. Do the rest of you agree, or do you think more information would be necessary? -- B F izz ( e• t• c) 23:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Just to explain a little my edit on the First Vision section: The theophany article states that it is an appearance of diety to man. A recent edit changed the word "God" to "an angel," but not all angels are considered diety so I changed it back to "God" since that is the meaning of the word theophany, applied to this context. I also modified the comment made about the various accounts of the first vision, merging it with the nearby Bushman citation and changing the wording to be a little more apologetic. -- B F izz ( e• t• c) 04:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I noticed this diff on my watchlist, a reversion by User:John Foxe of an anonymous editor's removal of the item about the play Angels in America. I'm not comfortable with the material that was restored, for three reasons:
I'm completely unfamiliar with the play myself, so if anyone watching this page has direct knowledge of it, can you help clear up these concerns? I'd tag it with something but I'm not sure if "citation needed" is the right fit for what I'm seeking. alanyst / talk/ 00:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
This section seems to be one that is constantly involved in edit wars. For some time, I have tried to think of what is the best way to approach it, and I have not decided whether the content even needs changing, but after taking a second look, I think the refs need some improvement. One major problem is that most of the cited references are not linked to entries in the reference section. Specifically, unlinked are in 6) Smith1838b, 7) Harris 1833, Hale 1834, Clark 1842, Turner 1851, Mather 1880, 8) Roberts 1830, 9) Bennet 1893 and Chase 1833. Another problem is that the citations are in part misleading, because the discussion in the footnotes does not link the citation to the main text. Specific problems:
The footnote suggests that Quinn's claim seems to be that Smith participated in a widespread phenomena of treasure hunting. The inference from the main text seems to be that Smith himself was readily caught up in the craze. Does Quinn claim that Joseph Smith was a "crazed" treasure seeker? Joseph Smith History(JSH) 1:56 seems to suggest otherwise, as Smith persuaded Stoal to stop looking. So, nevermind the controversy around Quinn, but if someone has Quinn, let's just make sure Quinn really believes Smith was a gung-ho treasure hunter, and not merely the more minor participant that Smith himself suggests.
I think the reference got mangled, it is clear from JSH 1:56 that the attempts were "mostly unsuccessful," but not at all clear that Smith claims to have acted as a seer for pay. ( I don't doubt this, I just want to make sure the ref is clear: being paid to be a moneydigger is not the same thing as being paid to be a seer).
This is rather a critical issue, because the descriptions of how Smith used seer stones, which I agree with, I have usually heard in the context of translating the Book of Mormon, not in the context of treasure seeking. Do every single one of these sources ascribe Joseph Smith as using seer stones to find treasures? If not there has been a conflation of how Smith used stones, with the more fringe claim that Smith readily used them to find treasure. Main text should probably be rewritten "process for using seer stones as"to bring it more inline with refs.
I think this is fine, but we could probably find other refs besides just Roberts that make this claim. Isn't it true that he did not exclusively use the chocolate seer-stone to translate? I might add 'in part' or 'among other means' to the main text for the sake of accuracy.
Well there you go...sound off mighty editors! -- Adlib24 ( talk) 19:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
This page is more of an advertisement than an article. It is one sided and only tells of Smith's dealing within his church, and bares no mention of the negative aspects of his life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtf612 ( talk • contribs) 01:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
For your amusement, and perhaps as a relevant general observation of the article: a word cloud from the JSJr article's text: Wordle: Wikipedia: Joseph Smith
I was going to post the actual picture...but didn't want to go through the trouble of uploading and everyting =P
--...but what do you think? ~ B F izz ( talk) 02:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
As a Mormon, I find this page very biased and argumentative in tone. I am just fine including factual parts of Joseph Smith's life that are controversial or negative, but the tone of this article is judgemental and biased. For example, look at the difference between this page and the article on Muhammad Muhammad. It is strikingly different in tone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgardunia ( talk • contribs) 15:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
As far as POV goes, consider: I believe it to be universally accepted that people who knew Joseph Smith believed him to either be a fraud & scam artist of terrible infamy or a prophet of God. That's an extreme range. Few fell in the middle, and thus few historical accounts come across as objective. It is reasonable to conclude from this fact that whatever Smith did, and whoever he was, caused both reactions. Therefore, to properly and accurately portray Joseph Smith, an article must have enough and adequate examples of his actions and life so that a reader understands why both parties felt the way they did. If a person reads an article about Joseph Smith and does not understand both sides, then that article is deficient since it does not explain the reality of the universally accepted fact that Joseph Smith caused both reactions.
As I read this article, I can understand why people felt he was a charlatan, but I have a hard time understanding why people would think he was a prophet. So he lived in various places, was arrested, published a religious book, proclaimed new and different religious doctrines, founded a city, ran for president, was murdered, etc.--so what? Those things do not explain why anyone would think him to be a prophet. Therefore, something is lacking. A person's believe in Smith as a prophet is based more on his effects on them than dates and places. Many believed they witnessed him perform miracles, such as dozens of healings when the Mormons arrived in the area that would become Nauvoo. Similarly, those with him in Zion's Camp claimed he performed miracles then, regardless of the mission's ineffectiveness at achieving its initial aims. Regardless of whether such miracles happened (and it is not the place of an encyclopedia to demonstrate or claim whether miracles did or did not occur, since they--perhaps by their very nature--are notoriously difficult to prove), it is a fact that his followers believed they had happened, and that fact is worthy of mention since it has much to do with their belief and devotion, and thus an understanding of Joseph Smith. 66.249.100.228 ( talk) 21:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
So we have: miracles, charisma, The Book of Mormon, and then martyrdom so far in this discussion. Martyrdom didn't cause people to follow Joseph Smith during his life, obviously, so that narrows it down to the first three. Of course, being a Mormon and a former missionary for the LDS church I can tell you from first hand experience that all these things pale in comparison to (when talking about reasons why people convert and why Joseph's story is significant to them) the converting power of the Spirit of God (The witness from the Holy Ghost) which was sent from God to witness unto all men the truth (dependant on their hearts being right enough before God). Yes, all truly converted Mormons know this but apparently have not mentioned it here yet. Ask any one of them. This is the real influence of Joseph Smith and the cause for his following. This should be included in the article along with a reference or quotation to a part of the Book of Mormon: MORONI 3:5-10 which is basically an invitation to find out by direct communication (prayer) with God whether the Book of Mormon is a true book of scripture. The same conversions happen now as they did back then.
Ok now after reading what I just wrote I have to say that this CAN *SOUND* like bigotry, but trust me it isn't. This is all relevant discussion that should be part of the article. A reader not knowing beforehand who Joseph Smith is would be lost without this important info.
By the way, please forgive the lack of writing skills including grammar and sentence structure. I'm doing my best here.
The original post to this discussion was "I find this page very biased and argumentative in tone" and I have to agree. There is no talk of 'Joseph Smith did more for the salvation of mankind than any man who ever walked the earth save Jesus Christ'. This tone is never touched upon in the article but the opposite tone does come through quite a bit: "...participated in a craze for treasure hunting" which biasly leads the reader to believe that Smith was a person caught up with some fascination of precious metals/treasure and thereby fabricated the concept of the Golden Plates. Indeed, the article takes the classic argumentitive approach that is taught in all college english persuasive writing courses: show a little bit (not all) of the opposition's perspective to gain more credulity and then smash it point by point with examples supporting your own point of view. This is routinely done in classes regardless of the truth of the position. So yes this article is highly biased towards the non-mormon/anti-mormon point of view.
To reiterate, the tone of this article currently goes as follows: 'Smith was a man who did this thing and that thing and thereby had a following of people. He was a man fascinated with treasure and thereby incorporated golden plates into his story to gain power. He was a domineering man who used his popular power to throw down his adversaries and submit them to his will and to gain his carnal desires.' So the tone currently goes: normal man, normal man, evil man. A true NPOV article would include the tone: great man and a true prophet of God. Zz55 ( talk) 21:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)Zz55
There is a switch between using Smith and Joseph to refer to Joseph Smith, I assume. To someone like me, I am unable to tell if those are two seperate people, with no knowledge on the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.231.149 ( talk) 14:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Just a random example: "Joseph Smith’s First Vision marked the beginning of the Restoration of Jesus Christ’s Church to the earth. In subsequent years, Christ restored His priesthood and reorganized His Church..."
There are those of us who don't think Christ did anything of the kind. HairyDan ( talk) 00:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
To give an example, I would not do that to the page on Mohammed -- changing every sentence containing "Mohammed did . . . such-and-such" to "Muslims believe Mohammed did . . . such-and-such". It should be obvious. Duh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.62.127.210 ( talk) 14:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Text in the 'Revealed to Smith' section describes Smiths dealings with the editor of the Whig paper 'The Warsaw Signal', Thomas C. Sharp using POV language - "arrogantly and unwisely offended".
Remove this? It could be replaced by the ref'ed quote so that the reader can make their own judgements. UnexpectedBanana ( talk) 19:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Freemasonry Exposed, p. 76, Confessions of John D. Lee, reprint of 1880 ed., p. 153, History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 618, Times and Seasons, Vol. 5, p. 585, Mormonism and Masonry, by E. Cecil McGavin, page 17 and Life of Heber C. Kimball, p. 26. All these say the Smith gave the Masonic signal of distress, why is this not included in the acount of his death? ( talk) 12:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.174.6.167 ( talk)
Could someone please explain how the Extermination Order has been completely excised from the article. It has become phrased in such milk toast terms as:
No mention of an extermination order, no explanation of the cruelty of such an order, the fact that at no other time in American history has anything similar been issued by government, or its impact on Joseph Smith and his role as prophet and leader of this religious group. We do have a statement that comes out of the blue, "Once the Latter Day Saints no longer posed a political threat, Missouri leaders realized that Mormon behavior could hardly be classified as treason whereas, as Fawn Brodie has written, the governor's "exterminating order stank to heaven."[80] How does this make sense? No one has explained the presence of an extermination order, that whole section has been white washed and treated as an "executive order" as in the President issued an executive order to pardon two turkeys on Thanksgiving.
Now, when I find this significant event being repeatedly expunged from the introduction, I begin to question if the objective is NPOV, or something which is the exact opposite. Please explain, John, because this looks like it "stinks to heaven". You said you rewrote the body, I assume that this is your work, but I have not verified it. I hope that it is not. Regardless, this event was significant in the life of Joseph Smith and his followers. I wonder if we should refer to the Jewish Holocaust as the result of Hitler's executive order and minor misunderstanding of the German government? -- Storm Rider 02:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
On another note, how does a mob's murder of an incarcerated group turn into an "assassination". That is so sterile as to be wholly lacking in any degree of description that reflects the event. JFK was assassinated. Robert Kennedy and MLK, Jr. were assassinated. Mobs attacking incarcerated black men in the southern jails is not assassination, but lynching and murder. Do you think there is a way we could actually describe the event? I am sure readers will not be overly influenced by sharing history with them. -- Storm Rider 02:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Thereafter "the Saints were bullied and threatened," and they responded in kind. Latter Day Saint families were driven from their farms, and Saints burned buildings belonging to the Missourians. In October 1838 a Mormon contingent skirmished with the Richmond County militia at the Battle of Crooked River. Three Mormons and a Missourian were killed. Missouri Governor Lilburn Boggs declared that the Mormons be "exterminated or driven from the state", an executive order for which there was no formal apology until 1976. A few days later a small party of Missourians surprised and massacred a Latter Day Saint settlement at Haun's Mill.
Joseph Smith wasn't "blazing away with a six-gun"; thus inciting others defend themselves. He was given a pepperbox (5 or 6 shots) by the sheriff--whether it was for Smith's or to makre it look "justified", I don't know. He didn't shoot until his brother Hyrium was shot--so much for the mob "defending itself". He then fired three shots at the mob, hitting no one, before dropping it and running for the window, where he was shot in the back. 68.231.189.108 ( talk) 03:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
You also need add that the pepperbox Joseph Smith had at the time he was shot was given to him by the Sheriff. He kept it in his pocket, did not draw it UNTIL Hyrum was shot, and only discharged about half of it into the mob (2-3 shots, depending on gun); hitting no one. No one Else was armed inside the cell. See BYU.org/Archives, History of the Church and lds.org/Ensign/June. I Demand you change this to the truth, instead of the fabrication you post; making the article even more biased against Smith. 70.171.235.197 ( talk) 00:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC) 1994 "Martryrdom at Carthage". 68.231.189.108 ( talk) 17:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Wrong, John Foxe, it is Very accurate and reliable.I see you haven't looked it up. Besides, the only other references are from the people of Carthage, IL---can we trust what they wrote after lynching and murdering? And, not going after the murderers until an accusation was made? It is obvious everyone Knew who did it, as their faces were obscured. They even later shamelessly declared they had the murderers in their midst after the "trial" concluded on the lack of the accusers showing. So, If they were capable or murder; etc; any reference by them may be purged or fudged to make them look "justified". Besides, were You there?03:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)03:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.189.108 ( talk) 68.231.189.108 ( talk) 17:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I've updated the article to include a sentence that reflects the fact that most Mormon apologists dispute the historical accuracy of Joseph Smith using "seer stones" to search for buried treasure -- a point given an enormous level of importance in the original article, even though it should probably be a minor point warranting, at most, a couple of sentences. The link provided in the page explains in depth the problems that most Mormon scholars would have with these historical accounts -- lack of internal consistency and the fact that they were made by third parties about what someone supposedly told them about Smith and his use of seer stones. So, for balance, I've included a new sentence reflecting scholar skepticism.
On a deeper note, I'm not sure why the use or non-use of seer stones is given so much space (six sentences, by my count) when it really is a minor point to the overall article. I'm sure that a sentence going something like, "Smith was also reported to have extensively used seer stones for treasure hunting --references--, although the accuracy of these reports is disputed by Mormon scholars" --references-- would convey the idea quite nicely. Do we really need six sentences to get this idea across, including an in depth description of the alleged stone as being chocolate colored? If not, I propose to move this information to a footnote or something. It doesn't seem like it's adding that much to the article to me -- too much information for an encyclopedia article.
Any other thoughts on this idea? If needed, perhaps we can put it to a vote. Jjc16 ( talk) 19:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
--> Move to another section?
Meanwhile as a young boy Smith participated in a "craze for treasure hunting."[5] Beginning as a youth in the early 1820s, Smith was paid to act as a "seer," using seer stones in mostly unsuccessful attempts to locate lost items and buried treasure. [6] Smith's contemporaries describe Smith's procedure for using seer stones to hunt for treasure as placing the stone in a white stovepipe hat, putting his face over the hat to block the light, and then "seeing" the information in the reflections of the stone.[7] His preferred stone, which some said he also used later to translate the golden plates, was chocolate-colored and about the size of an egg, found in a deep well he helped dig for one of his neighbors.[8]
During this period Smith said he experienced a visitation from an angel named Moroni[9] who directed him to a long-buried book, inscribed on golden plates, which contained a record of God's dealings with ancient Israelite inhabitants of the Americas. This record, along with other artifacts (including a breastplate and "seer stones" that Smith referred to as the Urim and Thummim), was buried in a hill near his home. On September 22, 1827, Smith said that after four years of waiting and preparation, the angel allowed him to take possession of the plates and other artifacts. Almost immediately thereafter, Smith recounts that local people tried to discover where the plates were hidden.[10]
Smith claims to have translated these plates of Gold by means of the Urim and Thummim seer stones. Third party accounts also claim that Smith used other seer stones for other activities, including placing a chocolate colored stone in the bottom of a stovepipe hat to look for a silver mine (insert references). However, the historical accuracy of the third party claims is disputed by some scholars (insert my reference).
--> Move to another section?
Smith left his family farm in October 1825 and was hired by Josiah Stowel, of nearby Chenango county, to search for a Spanish silver mine by gazing at his seer stone.[11] In March 1826, as a result of his using his seer stone to search for the silver mine, Smith was charged with being a "disorderly person and an impostor" by a court in nearby Bainbridge.[12]
--> Move to another section
Smith also met Emma Hale during this period and married her on January 18, 1827. Emma eventually gave birth to seven children, three of whom died shortly after birth. The Smiths also adopted twins.[13] (See Children of Joseph Smith, Jr.)
As I explained earlier, if we want to put more stuff in about seer stones (arguably an interesting part of Smith's life) then we should make a separate section. The changes I've introduced are for a very condensed edit of the Golden Plates section, leaving out a lot of the seer stone information. If we still want to include it, move it to another section!
What does everyone else think? Jjc16 ( talk) 17:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
In regard to the impartiality of the BYU faculty, I recall Mark Twain's take on the testimony of the Eight Witnesses, "I couldn't feel more satisfied and at rest if the entire Whitmer family had testified." Hi540 ( talk) 18:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
John--
And who are you (or I) to decide that this research ISN'T good? The proper thing to do is to put it into the article. If BJU had claimed that Mormonism is a cult AND produced actual research giving reasons why they were a cult and the research seemed credible, then why not? At the same time, I might throw in a few quotes disputing the legitimacy of their research, if such quotes exist. If the quotes don't exist, then no. But, in any case, as editors, it is not our job to decide which research is good and which isn't -- only to provide such research to the public. I don't think anyone here has an a priori reason why we should reject the research from BYU -- other than the rather specious reason that it was "paid for by the Mormon church". So what? Like I said, I've worked personally with several good professors who graduated from and did research at BYU. I think they, and all of the other professors I know at that university, would be offended by the challenge to their academic integrity that this line of thinking implies.
Furthermore, the professors at BYU can't find reasons to doubt the veracity of the statements about Smith's treasure hunting if none existed. If you read the article carefully, the BYU professors never "pull rank" and point to revelation or something silly like that. They systematically go through the different accounts that deal with this situation and, one by one, raise questions about the accounts that have been recorded. It's a valid critical approach to any historical topic, and it is one that deserves to be included in this article for balance. Jjc16 ( talk) 00:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
"Mormonism" (LDS) IS a cult. Look up the word "cult". Any organization with rituals--Methodist Church, Masons, Boy Scouts--are cults. This is not a bad connotation. Let's get past it. 68.231.189.108 ( talk) 17:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
(new indent) The problem is that none of this is mentioned in the article. Joseph is said to have identified the Urim and Thummim, but their use is not indicated. Worse, under the section entitled Golden Plates the readers see, treasure hunting, seer stone, stovepipe hat, preferred stone to translate. 2nd paragraph, visitation by Moroni in 1827, gold plates and purpose, breastplate, Urim and Thummim hidden in hill. 3rd paragraph, go back to 1825 for Spanish mine, 1826 for trial on using seer stones, 4 paragraph - marriage to Emma. All that under Golden Plates, but very little of it has anything to do with, but we get a huge dose of seer stones.
Proposal: I am not arguing against discussing seer stones, I am proposing that we don't cover the translation process well, Smith's own words are completely excluded from the article on this topic, and we don't really address the section topic of Golden Plates. We can do better, we can be more balanced, and we can include more information. Does this make sense? Just read the article, I know John would choke at this type of writing because it is so poor. Chronological events are confusing interspersed, main topic is ignored, and a plethora of secondary information takes center stage. Does this make sense? -- Storm Rider 00:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Fascinating discussion - I'd never dare to try to improve the main page but if anyone is interested in light relief at this point, here's my take on Urim and Thummim: http://sexualfables.com/the-sorcerers-apprentice.php - Joseph Smith, Herman Melville anyone? When objectivity fails, try something else. Martin Blythe ( talk) 22:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
70.171.235.197 ( talk) 13:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC) I ask you write Brigham Young as successor; footnote "disputed". You can dispute or contest anything, but the Majority of LDS went to Utah at his guidance.[Special:Contributions/70.171.235.197|70.171.235.197]] ( talk) 13:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
70.171.235.197 ( talk) 15:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Maybe. Most US Presidential elections were disputed, for example:we certainly contested Schwarzenegger's "election" in CA (I don't know Anyone who got to vote on it). Even though "disputed", he Is Governator. I'm sorry you're in the C of C; I didn't meant to abrogate your right to an opinion. There is discrepancy and controversy in every faith. 70.171.235.197 ( talk) 15:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
70.171.235.197 ( talk) 19:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Neutral--Ha! What about the remarks about Smith marrying married women, promising 10 virgins for each convert? These are opinion. Also, the "majority of the minority". This doesn't pan out. 70.171.235.197 ( talk) 19:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
John Foxe: Smith never "married previously married women." This is again rumor; probaly by the 'Expositor'. 68.231.189.108 ( talk) 17:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
(UTC) 70.171.235.197 ( talk) 00:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Look up your own article on "Fanny Alger"--it proves by DNA evidence Smith bore no children by anyone but Emma Smith. He constantly declared he had only one wife You contradict yourselves. 70.171.235.197 ( talk) 00:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
The writer inferred he was C of C--this was a poor example, by the way, if he was so all-knowing. As we said it wasn't started until 1872, anybody could have looked that up, and it was almost after the controversy. So, a Few think Brigham Young wasn't the direct Successor? They are a very small minority--maybe 10%. So, maybe I get a log in, that makes me "righter"? Or "less right" if I don't? Did being President necessarily make George Bush "righter"? Of course not....Fact and the Truth stay the same. Are you Afraid of something?
68.231.189.108 (
talk) —Preceding
undated comment added
03:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC).
Hey all.
Just a thought that roughly half of the "Early Years" section seems to focus on the "Craze" (contextual connotation likely meaning fad then, but could be associated with 'crazy' in current context)of treasure-hunting and looking-stones. I understand this being presented, but by its large focus it could mislead one into thinking that the majority of Joseph Smith's early years were spent on these endeavors.
No mention is given to painful leg surgeries which could have cost him the use of his leg. Or the nature of his farming duties. Or the different religious leanings he had during those years. Or his love for the game of stick-pulling. Or the religious divisions within his family. Or his relationship with his older brother Hyrum and his respect for his other siblings. Or the role his Father Joseph Smith Sr. played in Joseph's upbringing?
I am not concerned about the facts presented, just that the fixation on Joseph's apparent interest in treasure hunting leads this article to a pretty darkened and myopic outcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiandy ( talk • contribs) 23:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree--it was easier to find gold than to dig ditches--many probably did it. The fact he was tried when he failed (Not convicted) is taken out of context to make Joseph Smith look like a con man, now trying to dupe people into a new faith---it is biased and presented untruely. 68.231.189.108 ( talk) 03:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi John,
I've spent many hours studying Joseph's life with an open mind and an interest in all facets of his life. I am not surprised to learn that the boy who refused alcohol during painful leg surgery grew to an adult who might drink socially. I do not refute the claims that a man who treated women and children with the greatest respect might have been married to more than one woman or to women much younger than him (I ascribe to a historical contextual approach when judging an individual and do not find this as disturbing as those of our day and age might based on modern norms and culture). So please understand my concern is not the documentation of the existence of practices or characteristics others will take issue with. My major concern is that the overall tone of this article seems to really miss the mark of Joseph's religious impact, the broad belief sytem he had, the characteristics that endeared him (and offended others) to his friends, his role within his own family, the timeline of the founding (restoration) of the Church of Jesus Christ (LDS), his martyrdom and its influence on church members and opponents and many other profound accomplishments attributed to Joseph Smith in his brief life of 38 years.
I have gone back and read through the discussion history as you suggested and am still concerned at the balance of the article. From studying the discussion I understand that much of the issue has to do with the POV and natural bias of each contributer. The problem is that when you try to balance those who view Joseph as a heretic or cult leader with those who have reverence or a position of great respect for him, the entire article may be suspect. no offense to contributors here, but the reality is people are not likely drawn to study Joseph Smith unless they are a follower or a detractor. And a mere compromise will yield even less truth as everything of factual value that reveals positive or negative insight will be criticized. In the end you are left with nothing but the musical equivalent of 'Gospel Punk' or the culinary equivalent of 'Spinach Pudding.' Thus, despite many hours of dedicated effort and input, what remains is a confusing and narrow article about a man who some call wicked and others the greatest American of the 19th Century.
My two-bits is a new outline. This outline might include a brief history not just extracted from, but representative of his own journals, followed by common criticisms or divergent opinions. Finally a short outline on the influence and impact Joseph's life plays in forming common LDS belief and practice. You might be interested in the two newly available volumes titled The Joseph Smith Papers (available through josephsmithpapers.org) which contain exact replicas of Joseph's own journals, meeting minutes, and correspondences. These would help in the foundational preparation for an outline of his history in his own words.
While this might not satisfy Smith detractors, it would seem to show the same respect for the founding prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints as is given on Wikipedia for most of the founders and leaders of other major religions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.60.41.15 ( talk) 21:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, John. I've followed your references but still do not see the point you are making here. Are you suggesting that using Joseph's own writings would be a biased and unreliable source? If so then we must throw out any auto-biographical writings. Juxtaposing your reference to the Southern States perspective(pre-civil war) with Joseph's writings seems unfair. It is clear through the common lens of history that the politic positions of the South were flawed. That does not seem to be the interpretation fair-minded historians have of Joseph Smith today. To the contrary, PBS' own documentary series was titled, "Joseph Smith: American Prophet." The LDS Church is widely respected for their small 'c' conservative practices and their respectful approach to the communities in which they reside. Their humanitarian work throughout the world, and their fundamental political neutrality are held in high regard by all who have taken the time to fairly research their actions as a Church. Do you personally hold Joseph Smith in no higher regard than the Slavery-tolerant South of the early to mid 1800s? Again, considering Joseph Smith remains a revered religious figure to millions worldwide, why is this article so negative in its tenor as compared to other religious figures (i.e. Mohammed, Pope John Paul)? I'm not looking for a glowing history, just a fair article sensitive in tone to those who still hold Joseph in high regard and to a man who backed his beliefs up with his own life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.199.159.196 ( talk) 07:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I've been looking at this whole NPOV thing and trying to put my finger on why this whole article still has such a negative point of view. I think I'm getting closer to it. First of all the "Mormon" side of the article is coming from Richard Bushman, a Mormon who is admittedly selected because of his fair-minded neutrality. That gives the article the illusion of fairness and neutrality. But then the "critical" elements are presented by the likes of John C. Bennett and Fawn Brodie, clearly unreliable researchers with strong biases which they bring to their writings. So in the math of it we have several selected neutral references combined with several negative references. That seems to me to add up to a heavy negative bias. Consider Wikipedia's own take on two of the sources for this article; Fawn Brodie: [Review on book on Thomas Jefferson] "Doesn't she [Brodie] know about making the theory fit the facts instead of trying to explain the facts to fit the theory? It's pretty fascinating, like working out a detective story, but she doesn't play fair." "Brodie became obsessed with the notion that Nixon had engaged in a homosexual relationship with his good friend Bebe Rebozo." "She [Brodie] even claimed that in dreams, she and Jefferson became "man and wife." Not surprisingly, Bernard Brodie is supposed to have muttered, "God, I'm glad that man is out of the house."
John C. Bennett While Bennett was mayor, he was caught in private sexual relations with women in the city. He told the women that the practice, which he termed "spiritual wifery," was sanctioned of God and Joseph Smith, and that Joseph Smith did the same. When discovered, he privately confessed his crimes, produced an affidavit that Joseph Smith had no part in his adultery and was disciplined accordingly. Although he vowed to change, he continued his scandalous behavior. When he was caught again, his indiscretions were publicly exposed and he was removed from his church positions, excommunicated from the church and stripped of public office. After Bennett left Nauvoo in May 1842, he claimed he had been the target of an attempted assassination by Nauvoo Danites, who were disguised in drag. He soon became a bitter antagonist of Joseph Smith and the Latter Day Saint church, reportedly even vowing to drink the blood of Joseph Smith, Jr. In 1842, he wrote a scathing exposé of Joseph Smith, entitled History of the Saints, accusing Smith and his church of crimes such as treason, conspiracy to commit murder, prostitution, and adultery.
So what is this article missing? The testimony of the living followers of the Church Joseph restored. You might start with this one, by Jeffrey Holland, LDS Apostle from the Church's General Conference this month;
"...Before closing the book [of Mormon], Hyrum turned down the corner of the page from which he had read, marking it as part of the everlasting testimony for which these two brothers were about to die. I hold in my hand that book, the very copy from which Hyrum read, the same corner of the page turned down, still visible. Later, when actually incarcerated in the jail, Joseph the Prophet turned to the guards who held him captive and bore a powerful testimony of the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon.8 Shortly thereafter pistol and ball would take the lives of these two testators. As one of a thousand elements of my own testimony of the divinity of the Book of Mormon, I submit this as yet one more evidence of its truthfulness. In this their greatest—and last—hour of need, I ask you: would these men blaspheme before God by continuing to fix their lives, their honor, and their own search for eternal salvation on a book (and by implication a church and a ministry) they had fictitiously created out of whole cloth? Never mind that their wives are about to be widows and their children fatherless. Never mind that their little band of followers will yet be “houseless, friendless and homeless” and that their children will leave footprints of blood across frozen rivers and an untamed prairie floor.9 Never mind that legions will die and other legions live declaring in the four quarters of this earth that they know the Book of Mormon and the Church which espouses it to be true. Disregard all of that, and tell me whether in this hour of death these two men would enter the presence of their Eternal Judge quoting from and finding solace in a book which, if not the very word of God, would brand them as imposters and charlatans until the end of time? They would not do that! They were willing to die rather than deny the divine origin and the eternal truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. For 179 years this book has been examined and attacked, denied and deconstructed, targeted and torn apart like perhaps no other book in modern religious history—perhaps like no other book in any religious history. And still it stands. Failed theories about its origins have been born and parroted and have died—from Ethan Smith to Solomon Spaulding to deranged paranoid to cunning genius. None of these frankly pathetic answers for this book has ever withstood examination because there is no other answer than the one Joseph gave as its young unlearned translator. In this I stand with my own great-grandfather, who said simply enough, “No wicked man could write such a book as this; and no good man would write it, unless it were true and he were commanded of God to do so." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.199.150.233 ( talk) 01:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Why is there no appearance of the JS daguerreotype or any mention of it in the article besides in external links? It is largely believed to be legitimate, and would be a better representation of JS than any paintings that exist? A good source for discussion on the topic is at http://www.photographfound.com/, of which I have no affiliations. It should be here in my opinion. Twunchy ( talk) 21:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Part of the Joseph Smith Jr.#Growth and persecution section currently reads as follows:
Following the completion of the Book of Mormon, Smith rarely any longer used his seer stone; and later "translations" were not based on purported ancient writings. He now received supernatural direction "whether a text lay before him or not."[34] From the early 1830s came the Book of Moses (which included a long passage about the biblical Enoch) as well as an attempt to revise the Bible.
The phrase "later 'translations' were not based on purported ancient writings" is incorrect: Smith later translated the Book of Abraham from an "Egyptian Book of the Dead."
The phrase "the Book of Moses...as well as an attempt to revise the Bible" may also be erroneous: to my knowledge, the Book of Moses was a part of his attempt to revise the Bible.
Also odd is the phrase "attempt to revise the Bible." He didn't attempt, I'm quite sure he did. However, using the phrase revised the Bible could be better clarified, for example: revised the King James translation of the Bible.
The phrase supernatural direction is also odd...how about divine direction?
While I'm hacking away at odd phrases, allow me to also point out the awkwardness of rarely any longer.
Comments? Feel free to implement my suggestions...otherwise if no one objects then I will address these issues myself in a day or two. ...but what do you think? ~ B F izz ( talk) 08:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)'
The phrase "as Bushman has written" appears twice in the article, and the phrase "as Richard Bushman has written" appears three times. Several months ago, I requested that we move away from using Bushman's words so frequently in the article. I don't mind so much now, the Bushman quotes add a little prosy-pizazz to the article, but can we please vary the wording when presenting a Bushman quote? ...but what do you think? ~ B F izz ( talk) 09:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Joseph Smith was convicted in a court of law of glass looking on March 20, 1826 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.174.18.39 ( talk) 19:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Wrong. Where did you get this , SineBot? He was accused, but acquitted. 68.231.189.108 ( talk) 17:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
The existence of this category is rather odd...which clergy is it referring to when it says "the clergy"? Any/all clergy...aparently. In any event...it is a technically correct categorization, I suppose. ...but what do you think? ~ B F izz ( talk) 02:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Whether or not Smith was actually convicted for a vagrancy-type offense (i.e., traveling around the countryside working for hire in a disfavored profession--of which he was, in fact, guilty, though today we would say such vagrancy-type laws are unconstitutional) is debated. Most of the witnesses to the trial say he was convicted, but one said he was discharged, and one said it was not an actual trial. Oliver Cowdrey, who was not present, said he was acquitted. So obviously, secular scholars say he was likely convicted, while apologists say he likely was not convicted. Given the lack of consensus, I don't think it's appropriate to include him in a category. COGDEN 18:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Good point--but no one can base anything on what the people of MO, NY, and IL wrote. They tried to castrate him; the Gov. of IL ordered Smith's death, etc--anyone like that is not above lying, perjury, or falsification of records.I did see a city record saying "acquitted"; will post when I find the ref. 68.231.189.108 ( talk) 14:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Every witness to Joseph Smith's translation of the Book of Mormon said that he looked at a stone in his hat. Arguing that Smith never said how he translated is arguing from silence. There is no evidence for anything else but the hat and just Mormon embarrassment at how silly this method must seem to most prospective converts today. Hi540 ( talk) 20:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Surely Bushman elaborated on other methods of translation? In any event, the accounts of people who witnessed the translation should be used carefully. See WP:PRIMARY for discussion on that. Specifically note the policy that "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." I very much agree with that. Stating or even implying that the "only" method of translation used was the "magic translation via the hat" should be avoided unless a reliable source asserts that such is the case. ...but what do you think? ~ B F izz ( talk) 19:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I thought about it, but I won't remove it. It is intended to chastise an editor that has a history without any degree of neutrality and one that provides no benefit to Wikipedia. As a higher standard of expertise and knowledge of editors evolves, she would not qualify. Her only interest is to offend and twist history to meet her own POV. However, I will stop responding to her rather ignorant comments until such time as a demonstration of knowledge is made. Moving on.
Fox is correct, Bushman barely mentions the process of translation in his most recent book or in the other books that I have. Regardless, Penumbra's edit above provides some excellent sources that demonstrate a diverse translation process. Maybe we can rewrite the article to include this fact? - Storm Rider 02:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
John Foxe notes, "The FAIR list was, of course, compiled by Mormon apologists and omits some important eye witness testimony." It was indeed compiled by Mormon apologists, however, there are no deliberate omissions. The list is intended to be as comprehensive as possible, and as FAIR becomes aware of additional quotes/references from any contemporary sources, they will be added to the list. Roger Penumbra ( talk) 16:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I think we can say that he translated by placing a stone in a hat and placing the hat over his face to exclude the light, and then just note, perhaps even in a footnote, that other methods of translation were also suggested. Although a few people (William Smith, and a very early Martin Harris) suggest other possible ways such as actually wearing a set of stone spectacles and an attached breastplate (William, though clearly William never actually witnessed this), looking through one of the sides of the spectacles (I think Harris suggested that, since the spectacles were apparently made for a giant--Harris never actually saw this, either, but did later see Smith use the stone in a hat). But nobody says that Smith did not use the stone in a hat method, and there are numerous eye-witnesses to this method, and a virtual consensus among Mormon and secular scholars that he used this method (possibly in addition to other methods, at least according to some apologists). COGDEN 19:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
My concern about the current phrasing is that it states that Smith translated the plates. This article needs to tread very carefully around the reality of the translation process: while there is no reason to be insulting towards the LDS, there is also no reason to echo the belief that any translation occurred. Saying that the act that Smith performed was "translation" implies that the golden plates were actually a testament from a supernatural being. The article needs to stick to language showing that Smith and other witnesses described the act as translation.— Kww( talk) 23:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
This section contains some good information, but it is presented in a childish-sounding way (no offense meant to anybody). Alexanderaltman ( talk) 03:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I commented out the following citation, which followed the statement that Smith wounded three men with his pepper-box:
<ref>
Hay, J. Atlantic Monthly. Richards was unharmed. Taylor was shot several times, but survived. (One of the bullets glanced off his pocket watch.)Taylor, John. Witness to the Martyrdom. pp. 91, 114–115.;Leanord, Glen. A Place of Peace, a People of Promise. Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book. Taylor, close behind the Prophet, had been using Markham's 'rascal-beater' to knock against the muskets and bayonets thrusting into the room.
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |chapterurl=
and |origmonth=
(
help)</ref>
The webpage at the beginning of the citation says nothing (that I can find with my ctrl-f skills) about Smith shooting and wounding anyone. The rest of it is just a footnote explaining what happened to Richards and Taylor. Can someone clarify what is going on here? ...but what do you think? ~ B F izz ( talk) 05:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I shall never forget the deep feeling of sympathy and regard manifested in the countenance of Brother Joseph as he drew nigh to Hyrum, and, leaning over him, exclaimed, `Oh! my poor, dear brother Hyrum!' He, however, instantly arose, and with a firm, quick step, and a determined expression of countenance, approached the door, and pulling the six-shooter left by Brother Wheelock from his pocket, opened the door slightly, and snapped the pistol six successive times; only three of the barrels, however, were discharged. I afterwards understood that two or three were wounded by these discharges, two of whom, I am informed, died...
This quote is erroneous. One pistol was given to Smith, only, by the sheriff. He hit no one with it. That's why you can't find names of who was "wounded" or "killed". 68.231.189.108 ( talk) 14:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Wrong. As I said, and, how could a "Mormon" have sneaked in "guns" past a very hostile crowd? And, it Was the Sheriff. Your reference is wrong. I will post when I find it. 68.231.189.108 ( talk) 19:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Also, I've never heard that Hyrum was shot in the face. I put an annoying {{ fact}} tag on that one...can someone find a source to back that one up, please? ...but what do you think? ~ B F izz ( talk) 05:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Update: I found an Eyewitness account by John Taylor, now how to source it? Apparently it is from History of the Church, 7:99-108. Also: whoever does the citation, please also replicate it on Death of Joseph Smith, Jr.#Attack by the mob since it also includes the statement of when Hyrum exclaimed "I am a dead man."...but what do you think? ~ B F izz ( talk) 05:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I Think the early years section has gotten much better. Thank you all. Now I also have sources other than Joseph Smith himself showing he did share the first vision with others before 1830. I am following up on more. After I have gathered and organized all of them I will upload them at one time and I will delete this unprovable, undocumentable, and non-neutral statement:"Although this experience was unknown to Smith's followers until the 1840s. . . . "
Unless someone can convince me why it should stay. I thought we already debated this one to death and made some good compromises in the last section I started. So, what's up with adding unprovable, undocumented, non-neutral statements? Or, am I just so biased to the LDS perspective that in some way I am just not getting it. Please help me understand. Wmgcf ( talk) 18:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I think the current sentence for the first vision in the early years is the most fair so far.:
The sources I was talking seem to be well known to the people participating in this discussion. We may not have the diary of the preacher who Joseph said persecuted him for telling the first vision. However, there were so many people close to him during that time who wrote later, like his mother, who affirmed what he said. That is the evidence I was talking about. I would be seriously surprised if an account was found from 1830 of someone who knew Joseph in the early years and was surprised by his account of the first vision. And I think we have put to rest the absurd arguments against inclusion of the first vision in the early years. Anyway, I mainly wanted a reasonable mention of the first vision in the early years. Thank you Wikipedia. Next week I want to work on something else. WMGCF 98.108.141.145 ( talk) 03:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Hey all.
Seeing no further discourse on my past post I would like input before including a new section.
One unique facet of Joseph Smith's life and influence is the on-going belief of his divine and prophetic role as Prophet, Seer, and translator still held by Church members today. In essence that his religion (the religion he believed) continues to grow and be embraced by millions worldwide.
Here is my proposal;
Modern Testators of the Ministry of Joseph Smith
While over 150 years has passed since the death of Joseph Smith, many continue to hold him in high regard as a great prophet and translator of scripture. In the October 2009 General Conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Elder Jeffrey R. Holland (Apostle and member of the Quorum of the Twelve) addressed Church members as follows:
"...Before closing the book [of Mormon], Hyrum turned down the corner of the page from which he had read, marking it as part of the everlasting testimony for which these two brothers were about to die. I hold in my hand that book, the very copy from which Hyrum read, the same corner of the page turned down, still visible. Later, when actually incarcerated in the jail, Joseph the Prophet turned to the guards who held him captive and bore a powerful testimony of the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon.
Shortly thereafter pistol and ball would take the lives of these two testators. As one of a thousand elements of my own testimony of the divinity of the Book of Mormon, I submit this as yet one more evidence of its truthfulness. In this their greatest—and last—hour of need, I ask you: would these men blaspheme before God by continuing to fix their lives, their honor, and their own search for eternal salvation on a book (and by implication a church and a ministry) they had fictitiously created out of whole cloth? Never mind that their wives are about to be widows and their children fatherless. Never mind that their little band of followers will yet be “houseless, friendless and homeless” and that their children will leave footprints of blood across frozen rivers and an untamed prairie floor.
Never mind that legions will die and other legions live declaring in the four quarters of this earth that they know the Book of Mormon and the Church which espouses it to be true. Disregard all of that, and tell me whether in this hour of death these two men would enter the presence of their Eternal Judge quoting from and finding solace in a book which, if not the very word of God, would brand them as imposters and charlatans until the end of time? They would not do that! They were willing to die rather than deny the divine origin and the eternal truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. For 179 years this book has been examined and attacked, denied and deconstructed, targeted and torn apart like perhaps no other book in modern religious history—perhaps like no other book in any religious history. And still it stands. Failed theories about its origins have been born and parroted and have died—from Ethan Smith to Solomon Spaulding to deranged paranoid to cunning genius. None of these frankly pathetic answers for this book has ever withstood examination because there is no other answer than the one Joseph gave as its young unlearned translator. In this I stand with my own great-grandfather, who said simply enough, “No wicked man could write such a book as this; and no good man would write it, unless it were true and he were commanded of God to do so." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.199.147.225 ( talk) 16:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the helpful feedback. I had considered revising the section to include a variety of modern statements by varied LDS leaders but agree this might look like "soapboxing." One short quote would seem to evidence the common reagrd of Church members and leaders toward Joseph Smith. Here is a much abbreviated revision, comments?
(Heading)Modern Testators of the Ministry of Joseph Smith
(Body)While over 150 years has passed since the death of Joseph Smith, most LDS church members, including senior church leaders continue to hold him in high regard as a great prophet and translator of scripture as evidenced in the following statement of Jeffrey R. Holland, a member of the Church’s Quorum of the Twelve; “[Joseph Smith’s] life asked and answered the question ‘Do you believe God speaks to man?’ In all else that he accomplished in his brief 38 and a half years, Joseph left us above all else the resolute legacy of divine revelation—not a single, isolated revelation without evidence or consequence … but specific, documented, ongoing directions from God” (“Prophets, Seers, and Revelators,” Ensign, Nov. 2004, p. 8) Source: “Witnesses of the Prophet Joseph Smith,” Ensign, Jan 2009, 10–15 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.199.147.225 ( talk) 05:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I am improving this article my deleting trivial information about Joseph's treasure hunting days and adding the first vision he had - which oddly enough wasn't included. I find it odd that multiple users are trying to undo my revisions and writing messages to me accusing me of vandalism and edit wars- yet those undoing my revisions are not responding to my direct efforts to engage them on the content of the revisions. So I am posting here.
If anyone has a problem with the revisions, then I invite them to discuss the article with me here before undoing my revision. If users undo my revision and fail to discuss content while accusing me of vandalism and edit war, then, I want to invite them to discuss the article here.
Joseph is loved or hated around the world for his religious history, which began with his first vision. While it is true that he did do some treasure hunting, in history he was a religious figure, not a treasure hunter. Wmgcf ( talk) 15:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. Nobody has yet to say anything about the content I added. Exactly what part of the content I added is not "neutral", and why?. Also, nobody has explained why a very lengthy discussion of treasure hunting is "neutral". And, even if the treasure hunting material is documented, how is it relevant to this article? Why should an encyclopedia article include trivial material? We could just as easily argue that the article should include lengthy discussions of the weather in the 1820's and document the crops the smith family grew. All of that could be documented along with treasure hunting. . . so there has to be more of a standard than just documentation to include material in an encyclopedia article. Wmgcf ( talk) 17:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
As a newbie I am beginning to understand what many are telling me about deleting material, so I decided to take a break on deleting material. However I challenge Mr. Foxe to explain to us why it is "neutral" to include a lengthy section on treasure hunting in the early years while claiming that the first vision has to be confined to the church section. Foxe, your statement "there's absolutely no evidence that Smith shared the First Vision with anyone until after the founding of the Church" is a pretty sweeping statement - on what evidence and sources do you base such a broad statement? How can you defend the neutrality of such a statement? I you were presented with new evidence tomorrow would you reconsider? Wmgcf ( talk) 20:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
You're both missing the point. We are not to prove whether or not Smith did this or that. We are to help people understand that millions of his followers believe x, y, and z about him, and that historical records outside of the church assert q, r, and s. While it would be wonderful to get The Truth (tm) out on Wikipedia, that simply can't be done 100% accurately when we're dealing with people who lived and died over a hundred years ago.
I said that I wanted more in this article about the First Vision. COgden has said "the amount said about it (the First Vision) needs to be proportional to its historical (not retrospective religious) importance." I disagree; retrospective religious importance is much more relevant to today's readers than is historical importance. This biography need not be strictly a recounting of historical events; Smith's impact on people today is much more useful to understand than is his impact on people a hundred years ago. As we step chronologically through Smith's life, when he says something happened at some point in time, or when others say something happened at some point, it is at that point that it should be included.
The Hinckley quote in First_Vision#The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints illustrates well one example of how important Joseph Smith, Jr. and the First Vision are to some people who are alive today. Generally, to achieve NPOV, we have presented what Smith's followers believe, and what his critics believe, as well as proven facts and events. Many followers consider the First Vision to be a turning point in Smith's life; whether or not it was, this belief should be clearly presented. ...but what do you think? ~ B F izz ( talk) 00:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
[user:Storm Rider|, [User:COGDEN|, and [User:B Fizz|; thank you for your excellent points. I was trying to illustrate that Mr. Foxe's perspective of trying to restrict what goes in the early years wasn't neutral at all. I think I made my point amply by driving the logic to absurdity. (Before I go further I confess to Wikipedia that I am biased because I am an Elder in the LDS church and a descendant of the Smith family) Using points from the three of you I will attempt to Summarize this section in the smallest amount of words possible. I am drafting new material for the early years with notes and references and I promise not to delete anything anybody else wrote for the next 5 days and if nobody beats me to it, 7 days from today I will add my stuff to the early years. Wmgcf ( talk) 06:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Room for more discussion here. . .
First draft of the section summary by Wmgcf, feel free to improve it, or anyone who I offended when I deleted treasure hunting stuff seven or ten times is welcome to delete the summary for revenge. If you delete the summary instead of editing it I will not send you strange messages calling you a vandal and threatening to block you from Wikipedia. But other users might who didn't actually read this discussion and know I gave you permission might call you a vandal and threaten to block you from Wikipedia, so vandalize thoughtfully! I propose if anyone wants to discuss more that they post it BEFORE the section summary, that way the section summary will always be at the end of the section.
Wmgcf (
talk)
06:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry if I'm beating a dead horse here, but it is my understanding that in the First Vision Joseph did not merely hear the voice of Jesus Christ, he saw and heard both Heavenly Father and his son Jesus Christ. This is a central message in the First Vision as it relates directly to a unique perspective Joseph taught concerning the Godhead, that Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ were two distinct beings and not merely one being in different forms. I would recommend the sentence simply be revised from, "Many years later Smith said he had experienced a theophany around 1820, a vision in which he said he saw and heard the voice of Jesus" to "Many years later Smith said he had experienced a theophany around 1820, a vision in which he said he saw and heard both Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ speak to him." (Reference, Joseph Smith History, 1:17)It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.60.41.56 ( talk) 18:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Section Summary
Our article, in the Zion in Missouri section, currently states:
Smith tried to organize a military response from Kirtland—a revelation had told him that "the redemption of Zion must needs come by power"—but the trek of what came to be called Zion's Camp ended with nothing accomplished.
There has been a recently reverted attempt to clarify the phrase "nothing accomplished." While I agree with the revert—the level of detail was too granular for this article, and it had the flavor of POV—I also agree with the original intent of the reverted content. The scope of "nothing accomplished" should be clarified. Quoth the Zion's Camp article:
Although the march failed in its primary objective, many of its participants became committed loyalists in the movement. When Smith returned to Kirtland, he organized the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, and the First Quorum of the Seventy, choosing primarily men who had served in Zion's Camp.
We should say something like that here, though more succinctly, if possible. We might also consider moving some of the reverted content into the Zion's Camp article. ...but what do you think? ~ B F izz ( talk) 19:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi John. I wonder why you would reference Brodie here as she is clearly an unreliable source (see Wikipedia's own posts on her work). She was in love with Thomas Jefferson, many other researchers questioned her methods, she was heavy into the idea Nixon had a gay lover... . I don't mind criticism and alternate points of view, but am concerned about using manipulated or sketchy evidences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.199.147.225 ( talk) 05:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi John
The more I have looked into your last post the more concerned I have become. I respect the fact that you have researched Fawn Brodie and contributed your findings to Wikipedia. The problem I have is with what I would call 'circular evidencing.' This is quite similar to many of the early anti-Mormon writings where "researchers" would present a false finding, after which other anti-Mormon researchers would quote that 'fact' and the whole falsehood would be accepted and validified based on its frequency of being referenced.
The fact you are quoting Brodie as an expert (her bias seems to throw her more appropriately into the category of skeptic) and then back that up with the fact you yourself have referenced her elsewhere suggests a more narrow reliability, not greater.
My main question becomes, to what degree have you looked fairly and critically into Brodie's research? Have you both read and explored the merits of Nibley's response to Brodie? It appears in your article you simply gave Brodie the last word on Nibley's paper, and Brodie's response was merely rhetorical. In debate that is poor form. Do you concur with Brodie? Could you tell me what some of your findings as you researched Nibley's claims were? No offense, but the majority of your other contributions present information neutral or respectful of the Evangelical Christian history, but not so Mormon history. No doubt my Mormon background may make me more skeptical of criticism and less reliable a contributor on this topic. Your thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.60.41.56 ( talk) 00:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Along this line, I am quite concerned at the narrow scope of referenced researchers. Despite the fact some view Bushman and Brodie as key researchers (I definitely question Brodie here) I'm concerned about the over-referencing of these two. If I handed a paper into one of my profs with over a hundred references and over two-thirds of them were from the same two sources (one only questionably reliable) I would expect to be questioned critically. I mean with whole departments at BYU (which does have a tenured program) devoted to religious studies and Church History I'm sure you could find more than one "reliable" Mormon source (Maxwell? Jensen? Holland? Nibley?).
My apologies if I sound disrespectful of the contributions and efforts here, I just continue to see this article as narrow in its use of reliable references. Please, to those posting and contributing, let's find some other sources than Bushman and Brodie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.199.147.225 ( talk) 03:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
My post was in reference to your rejection of Jensen based on his being a lawyer. You wrote, "Neither is a professional historian: Holland was an English major, and Jensen is a lawyer." That Jensen is more reliable than Brodie was a secondary point.
On another point, I am declaring defeat. If it is already a given that the "Prominent" scholars on Joseph Smith are an obsessed anti-Mormon and one Mormon scholar whose admitted focus was predominantly on the unique foibles and shortcomings of Joseph Smith (guess it would be bad research if we looked at the man's strengths and writings); if this is the foundation of the structure then would be wasting my time (I have kids, a job and a life) and doubt I would be accomplishing anything criticizing the plans. Again, I will summarize my concerns lest any care to pick up my own marathon of hope at a later date.
1. While Joseph Smith's influence on religion, his role as a martyr of American religious freedom, and the legacy of good he left behind, are powerful and arguably unparalleled in modern religious experience; this article focuses predominantly on issues which are more contentious out of context in more modern society (i.e. polygamy, "treasure hunting," militaristic tendencies).
2. Despite the large school of researchers who have written effectively and reliably on the subject of Joseph Smith, the mantra that Brodie and Bushman are the most "prominent" writers on the subject seems to justify their over-usage.
3. Contributors here seem cautious about using LDS researchers because of their potentially biased POV. That is except for Bushman perhaps because he is comfortable finding fault with Joseph. At the same time the most active contributor (graduate of an Evangelical University, Evangelicals as a collective forming potentially the largest community of LDS critics, think Huckabee v. Romney) who plays the greatest role in guiding what is included and reliable is never questioned on his own POV.
4. Despite the fact that a large religious movement (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints) continues to revere Joseph Smith as a great Prophet and revelator, religious sensitivities seem to draw closer to those shown Jim Jones or Tammy Faye Baker than those shown the Catholic Popes, Billy Graham, or the Reverend Martin Luther King. I guess political correctness doesn't apply to Mormons.
I concede that I have not studied Joseph Smith as critically as others here and so need to concede victory here. I merely wish to reflect that as a modern day member of the Church founded by Joseph Smith Jr., the article here is heavy on criticism and light on sensitivity.
Just my POV. Don't worry, I won't go away mad, I'll just go away.
Excelsior! Canadiandy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.199.147.225 ( talk) 04:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
The primary concern mentioned by the anonymous user was "the narrow scope of referenced researchers", and I quite agree. We have reached the point where most everything in the article is referenced, but virtually all references point to Brodie or Bushman. We should look into backing up those referenced statements with more references from varied sources, rather than try to insert new material. If you look at the first 20 or so sources cited, they are varied. Then they turn into Bushman/Brodie for the rest of the article. History of the Church might be a good source to strengthen our reference pool. ...but what do you think? ~ B F izz ( talk) 19:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
The references appear to be in two separate alphabetical groups (at least they are using IE). Also, there are a number of notes referring to Ostlings but there is no book in the reference section for those notes. Those that edit this article more regularly may want to review. Thanks, Alanraywiki ( talk) 00:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing that. I didn't pick up on that setup. Alanraywiki ( talk) 06:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
After browsing the web, it has came to my attention that a professional latter day saint apologetic research organisation has been monitoring this and several other latter day saint related wikipedia articles, and on their site they have made their own review of this and others assessing the content paragraph by paragraph, and citation by citation.
Now upon fairly analysing this article, which can be found section by section at the links below. They have made several valid and carefully researched accusations of citation abuse by the editor "John Foxe" and a couple of others, and to prove this they have cited wikipedia policy in their work and shown with specific examples how the policy has been violated in the various sections of the article. It is not deliberately looking to find fault in wikipedia may I add, as it accepts the parts of the article which are correct via wikipedia policy.
I believe throughly that this could form a good platform on keeping the article in check from Anti-LDS intended editors deliberately tainting the article to their own merits. However, it is also worth noting that the same website is accusing the editor "John Foxe" of deliberately intended spin control in order to make the article appear as negative as possible. This is proven if you at the links which show his abuse of in the article citations. The website also made the following quote on him. I believe that this is vital to be realised, and discussed. The same website also accuses him of citation abuse on a huge number of other LDS articles, I will give the examples on the specific talk pages over time.
In the case of certain LDS articles owned by the editor who uses the pseudonym John "Foxe," he has taken upon himself the task of bringing certain LDS Wikipedia article in line with his definition of "truth." His philosophy is that once an article has been "correctly" written, that it simply needs to be maintained against those who would attempt to heavily modify it in any manner. Following this approach, he has worked his way through a number of articles and worked hard to keep them stable...as long as that stability reflects his desired spin. This allows FAIR to analyze these articles with a high degree of assurance that they will remain close to the form that they are in at the time they are reviewed.
— FAIR Wiki, Quote
Routerone ( talk) 12:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank goodness, I was thinking I was the one in the closet here. I knew something was wrong with this article when I first read it, but I had literally found such a wall around this article I had given up (see previous post). The argument has been made by Foxe before that the reason Brodie and Bushman are so heavily referenced is because that's how encyclopedias do things. But it seems to me if you are trying to act like an encyclopedia you tone down on the inflammatory issues, especially the ones which are speculative. If I had read an article in any formal Encyclopedia with such negative spin I would be shocked. I am now waiting for Foxe to answer the following;
1. What was and is your personal POV on Joseph Smith? 2. While you seem fully immersed in the full range of Anti-Mormon writings, which of Joseph Smith's major writings have you read completely and what is your view on them? The Book of Mormon (531 pages)? Doctrine and Covenants (under 300 pages)? The Joseph Smith Papers (literal photostats directly from Joseph's own writings)? 3. Despite his POV, what evidences do you have that Nibley is unreliable as a critic of Brodie? 4. Why are LDS writers dismissed based on their being English Majors or Lawyers? 5. Why have contributors like yourself allowed such a negative and insensitive tone around a man who is still held in high regard by millions and millions of people; comparing Encyclopedia opening statements on Smith I find;
(Wikipedia) "...financial collapse, and conflict with disaffected members encouraged him to gather the church to the Latter Day Saint settlement in Missouri. There, tensions between Mormons and non-Mormons escalated into the 1838 Mormon War. Smith and his people then settled in Nauvoo, Illinois where they began building a second temple. After being accused of practicing polygamy and of aspiring to create a theocracy, Smith, as mayor of Nauvoo and with the support of the city council, directed the suppression of a local newspaper that had published accusations against him, leading to his assassination by a mob." Within the first two paragraphs we have managed to jam in Church dissension, polygamy, poor economic management, war, religious aspiration (does Wikipedia accuse Luther of "Aspiring to create a theocracy?")and even media control (no mention of the papers actions which led to these events).
Then consider the Britannica(extracted December 5, 2009 from, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/549791/Joseph-Smith)second paragraph (the first paragraph is arguably even more respectful);
(Britannica) "Religious differences within the family and over religious revivals in the Palmyra area left Smith perplexed about where to find a church. When he was 14, he prayed for help, and, according to his own account, God and Jesus Christ appeared to him. In answer to his question about which was the right church, they told him that all the churches were wrong. Although a local minister to whom he related the vision dismissed it as a delusion, Smith continued to believe in its authenticity. In 1823 he received another revelation: while praying for forgiveness, he later reported, an angel calling himself Moroni appeared in his bedroom and told him about a set of golden plates containing a record of the ancient inhabitants of America. Smith found the plates buried in a stone box not far from his father’s farm. Four years later, the angel permitted him to remove the plates and instructed him to translate the characters engraved on their surfaces with the aid of special stones called “interpreters.” Smith insisted that he did not compose the book but merely “translated” it under divine guidance. Completing the work in less than 90 days, he published it in March 1830 as a 588-page volume called the Book of Mormon."
Here Britannica does a very fair job of recording Smith's own History of his events. No preaching, no insensitivity, no fringe issues and no apparent spin for or against. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.199.147.225 ( talk) 19:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your input COgden, but the point still stands that both Britannica and Wikipedia source Bushman and Brodie as major sources yet arrive at completely different tones for their article on Joseph Smith. Is it Britannica that is biased? How else do you explain this without considering bias or data manipulation. Additionally, the FAIR contributors identify their POV clearly by their affiliation. The only way I found Foxe's background was reading through other articles he has posted. I find that at best disingenuous. I do not intend do discredit Foxe's efforts, his passion, or even his integrity. And I have no problem with fair and balanced contributors of any faith presenting article support. I merely point out his POV seems to be under-presented, the article is atypically harsh in its approach to Smith, and LDS POV (Bushman excepted, but even then it seems his references to shortcomings seem to be over-represented considering the whole of his writings) is too readily dismissed. Checking out Brittanica I think you would agree this is by far the most negative and critical in focus and tenor.
I am new to this process, but is there not a jury process for investigating the fairness of this article given its discrepancy with the tone of parallel encyclopedic articles. It seems to me the problems with the article are not merely in the details, but in the very framework and structure of the article and in a hopefully coincidental bias (is it possible us Mormons are too busy at Church meetings, serving missions, and raising larger families to be active in balancing out this article, humour intended). Canadiandy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.199.147.225 ( talk) 20:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
John, I'm still not getting a response as to your POV on Joseph Smith. And actually the possibility that one contributor in tandem with only one or two like-minded individuals could direct the development of an article is not at all absurd. One of the two main criticisms with Wikipedia is its reliability based on the impact of Group Dynamics on its articles. As well Wikipedia states that "...neutral point of view (NPOV) [i]s one of its non-negotiable principles. However it acknowledges that such concept has limitations - its policy indeed states that articles should be "as far as possible" written without bias." See as a commenter (not a contributor as I have not contributed anything to the text of the article) who is LDS I feel to excuse myself from contributing based on my religious respect for Joseph Smith. I get that and see it as proper. At the same time, that does not mean I am going to sit on the sidelines and watch indivivuals who may have a negative POV towards Joseph Smith dictate his history unfairly. So please, in the name of fairness to Wikipedia, its contributors, and its trusting readers, what is your personal POV on Joseph Smith? I've been using 4 square brackets thinking they were tildes, hope it works this time 199.60.41.15 ( talk) 23:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)Canadiandy
Thanks for your quick response John. I figured I was grown up when I learned 'ampersand,' thanks for 'tilde.' I think it's the first time I've used that thing. I was more interested in your POV towards Joseph Smith not Mormonism. There are many out there who figure he was a true Prophet of God. Some who are fascinated or at least interested by his historical accomplishments and character. And then there are those who believe him a liar, a heretic, and a con-man. Of course there are all variations in between those. But my concern is that you may be coming at this with a previously negative or unfairly biased POV towards Joseph Smith. I do not take fault with you for that even if you think the greatest evil of Joseph Smith. I just think it important that we know your work here is based on neutrality and not merely an effort towards neutrality. I think of it as jury duty. A fair jury process will require removal of any who come in with bias or conflict of interest and then the expectation that those remaining will strive to operate without bias throughout the proceedings of a case.
Also, I am not a member of FAIR. Except for this article I don't dabble in big religious discussions (more interested in studying and practicing my religion that deconstructing it). But I suspect they are singling you out (fairly or unfairly) because you seem to be the senior contributor at the time and at present the article remains heavily slanted. No, I don't think you made it that way (I have reviewed the history and it looks more like you inherited the problem) I just think they might see you as responsible or at least doing nothing about it. So the fault is more likely one of omission and not comission. I don't envy the work it would take, but it seems you are faced with either radically revising the scope, sequence and tenor of the article to be a little more sensitive to family and followers of Joseph Smith, or stepping aside so some new 'jury members' can have a less polarized go at it. I wish you courage and inspiration in the choices ahead.
Seriously, I did not take on contributing to these discussions out of anger or some kind of axe to grind. I was just so shocked initially by the imbalance of what I read when I visited this page that I felt I had to offer input. PBS was balanced, Britannica was balanced, but from my POV, anyone who thinks this is balanced has gone to a few too many "Secrets of Moronism Revealed" seminars at their local church.
199.60.41.15 ( talk) 01:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)Canadiandy
Me again (Canadiandy). Thanks for referencing FAIR's criticism of your contributions. I hadn't read them before and they were quite informative about what may be happening here. One thing I actually am enlightened by is what I have identified as negative and unfair treatment of Joseph Smith here. I know that sounds weird but let me explain how it works. See, Brigham Young once said, "Every time you kick "Mormonism" you kick it upstairs; you never kick it downstairs." I saw a perfect example of this during my own missionary service. In the area I was assigned some other religion delivered a book to every doorstep in the community called, "God's Word, Final, Infallible, and Forever" which was in reality a disguised anti-Mormon tract, despite the misleading title the majority of the book merely set forth to discredit Joseph Smith and Mormonism. Well in the end we had more people investigate and join the Church in that area than ever before. See, when people would read through those criticisms they wouldn't coincide with their experience with Mormons and the Church. So they looked further, and that investigation led them to find out the truth about Joseph from respectful and more reliable sources. So yeah, in some ways I hope this stays slanted. I just hope the links at the very bottom (the truth in fine print) stay active while it is because people are going to be looking.
99.199.147.225 (
talk)
04:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)Canadiandy
Actually, no COgden. My shock had nothing to do with seeing some of the criticisms of Joseph Smith that exist in the academic world (and I resent the suggestion that I have received a shielded perspective based on my Church upbringing, if this is your attitude I would question your Church experience. On Joseph Smith I've pretty much heard it all. Infact, this article is exactly what I would expect to see from a typical anti-Mormon website which was trying to appear open-minded (heavy focus on shock value issues such as polygamy, political involvement, military early on, followed by some respectful links placed conveniently way at the bottom). My shock is that this article has evolved into a very unfairly organized piece. By presenting a barrage of controversial and inflammatory themes in the opening two paragraphs any uninformed reader would quickly dismiss Joseph Smith and move on. That, I feel, is unfair and poor journalism. Remember Bushman was not writing for the masses, he was writing for those already familiar with Joseph Smith. Thus Britannica can write an article with the same sources and come across as ten times more sensitive than this article. And yes, with respect, I think it's time we 'dismissed the jury.' This one seems hung. Here is my theory as to how we got here. Generally speaking there are two types of people who research Joseph Smith (as evidenced in Brodie/Bushman). There are those who hate him, and those who love him. Now on Wikipedia, those who love him are quickly dismissed or are respectfully cautious in posting based on their POV. But those with a negative POV towards Joseph Smith are pretty much all that is left, and they then have free rein to guide the Wikipedia agenda. Again, this is a classic example of the flaw Wikipedia has w/ Group Dynamics. My solution would be to throw it all out, and scour the forest for a few truly neutral contributors (not just people trying to be neutral) and let them try it again. I suspect what they would come up with would look an awful lot more like Brittanica, and an awful lot less like "God's Word, Final, Infallible, and Forever.". 99.199.147.225 ( talk) 19:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)Canadiandy
John Foxe are you accepting compensation from your evangelical organization for your mormon wikipedia adventures? Or perhaps there is there more than one human behind that wikipedia username of yours? Those are my best guesses as to why and how you are so active on this and other mormon wikipedia articles. Please explain in detail your POV and why you care so much. Others have freely admitted their POV. When pressed recently you said you were trying to be "accurate"; accurate to what? and why are you trying? Please help us understand the person (people?) behind the wikipedia username John Foxe? Proudneutralmormon ( talk) 14:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
John, I'm still waiting for your POV on Joseph Smith. 99.199.147.225 ( talk) 19:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)Canadiandy
John, it is likely you are not now, nor have ever been a member of the Communist Party either. Your religion, I feel, has nothing to do with this. But still the question remains, not whether you are a Mormon or not, but what was your POV (i.e. respect, disrespect, hatred, skepticism, reverence, mere scholastic interest, naivety, desire to discredit, fascination) regarding Smith when you began your contributions? I am assuming good faith, but I am also not getting direct answers to simple questions. 99.199.147.225 ( talk) 06:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)Canadiandy
COgden. You are comfortable identifying your Church membership and so I hope you take no offense at this. But as you have broached the subject I feel it only acceptable to ask you whether you consider yourself what might be termed an 'orthodox' Mormon? While you claim membership your viewpoints here do not seem to reflect common Church member attitudes or sensitivities. Of course most members recognize the challenges Joseph faced in Kirtland and Nauvoo. But from my experience the majority of Mormons would view the key elements in Joseph's life and development as his strong Christian upbringing, the love of his family, his spiritual sensitivities, the Vision he had of God and Jesus Christ, his incredibly close bond with his brother, Hyrum, his courage, the tutelage he received from heavenly messengers including Moroni and John the Baptist, his innate integrity, his compassion, and his strong work ethic. How could you have missed those? Like Sarah Palin, it looks like you've, "Gone Rogue." Please don't get me wrong, I am not questioning your devotion or religious conviction, or even you understanding of Church History. But for others reading on this discussion page I feel it important to point out that your statements here clearly do not reflect a common consensus of Church members. So feel free to identify yourself as a Mormon, just make sure to point out your opinions are not those of the majority of Church members. 99.199.147.225 ( talk) 01:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)Canadiandy
John, it was not me that suggested you were a Baptist, please correct. In fact I had assumed you were more likely an Evangelical Christian. But would you please correct your claim that FAIR is an "arm" of the LDS Church. It is simply not true. 99.199.147.225 ( talk) 01:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)Canadiandy
The question in my mind now is "...so what?" Canadiandy, and whoever else, if you have specific changes, based on the FAIR analysis of this article, that you want to suggest, by all means please do so. I highly recommend making a new section on the talk page for each individual point you wish to change, because discussions (like this one) often turn into long, meaningless blobs of text. ...but what do you think? ~ B F izz ( talk) 02:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Just starting some discussion about the proposed new section of the article. I like the idea and look forward to seeing it fleshed out a bit more. ...but what do you think? ~ B F izz ( talk) 02:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Nah. Unless it will be used as a way to pull all the inflammatory concepts out and place them together in one at least three paragraphs down (I don't disagree with stating these opinions and views, just that their juxtaposition at the very beginning is poor form from a site which prides itself on neutrality). 99.199.147.225 ( talk) 05:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)Canadiandy
Last post. Sorry if I got a bit snippy here. Still quite disappointed at the slant, but that may just be the nature of the beast. Peace. 99.199.147.225 ( talk) 05:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)Canadiandy
While not an end-all neutral source, the LDS manual Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith may prove useful for this section. ...but what do you think? ~ B F izz ( talk) 20:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello, according to my understanding of Wikipedia guidelines, referenced material should not be deleted. Earlier today I added updated statistics showing the number of followers of Joseph Smith has risen above 13 million. The 13 million is based on 2008 stats. One editor, use John Foxe decided to delete the reference and the additions claiming they don't belong here. Following the guidelines of collaboration and consensus, I am starting this new discussion section to find out if the various individuals interested want to weigh in on this question.
Considering the edits were referenced with newer stats than were already there, correct me if I am wrong, they should stand unless we have a very strong consensus to stick with the old. So I have undone Mr. Foxe's premature undoing of my addition until we have a consensus. After we have a consensus, if the community agrees with Mr. Foxe, then I suppose I will take the numbers down.
The reason the numbers matter is because the LDS church is Joseph's legacy. If J.S. had only 20,000 modern-day followers, then he would have a much different place in history. 98.108.141.145 ( talk) 20:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Man, I appreciate your calling yourself a Mormon, but your views here sure aren't reflective of the majority of Mormons I know. A member with serious experience or understandings of Church policy relative to membership will know the following; 1. Membership is only recorded for a living individual who has, of their own free will, been baptized and then confirmed a member. The only exception to this is for children of baptized parents until the age of accountability (9). So it is mighty hard for a person to accidentally become a Mormon. Now whether they are active in Church attendance is another issue, but here the Church does not make the decision for the individual (that is a matter of free agency). 2. While records of children whose parents are members are kept they are not considered members after the age of 9 unless baptized and confirmed. 3. There are many in the world who have never been baptized (for legal, physical, or family reasons) yet might still consider themselves "members" or followers of the Church. So the argument of estimating downward is highly questionable. 4. Anyone who does not wish to remain a member of the Church needs only to follow a few simple steps to have their membership removed (a process consistent with many organizations and in compliance with all State laws). So, of those 13 000 000, you would be hard pressed to find a handful of 'accidental members.' How frequently they attend is merely speculative and questionable.
Perhaps it should be written, While Mormon leaders claim 13 000 000 members it is estimated by someone pulling numbers ranging from 1 to 12 999 999 out of a hat that 3 784 433 of them failed to attend Church last Sunday and so are excluded from consideration by Wikipedia contributors. In addition, 498 743 estimated children are merely attending because their Mommies made them so they are likewise removed from educated membership estimates. As to the estimated number who did not attend because of flat tires we can only speculate. But after Wikipedia review the number now stands at 17, and one of them is a declared Communist. man, sorry COgden, but you're really off the mark this time. 99.199.147.225 ( talk) 07:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)Canadiandy
Actually I still see a very good reason why the 13 million worldwide figure should be used. Naturally, one of the first questions a person will have when learning about a religious figure is how many followers? Before my edit today this article said a vague "millions" could be interpreted by a reader as anywhere from 2 million to 999 million. A reader would have had to search elsewhere to find out that simple 13,000,000 answer that occupies only 10 characters of text. We do have the sources mentioned in the 2nd note. A careful read of the notes shows that the 2003 figures put out by the church were considered accurate and verified by neutral third parties. If we wanted to accept COGDENS allegation that the 2008 rolls are inflated - well, COGDEN or somebody should provide a reputable neutral source for 2008, of similar quality to the 2003 source saying so.
Bottom line, having the figure of 13 million backed by a good reference, as opposed to a vague magnitude estimate of "millions" is factual encyclopedia style.
And, finally, please do not delete the material, which is sourced, until there is a strong consensus in this section first. I think the figures should stand on the site and allow more people to post their opinion on the matter in this section. Right now I read it as me, for keeping the 13 million, and 2 users COGEN and B Fizz opposed. I don't think that's enough consensus to delete the factual, sourced material. 98.108.141.145 ( talk) 01:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
(New indent) So every other article on Wikipedia on a church gets to quote their membership numbers, but this one? For some reason, this one needs to have their numbers reported by a "neutral", "scholarly study". This makes me roll on the floor laughing. COgden used the SLTimes article, which only used membership numbers as reported by other religious groups...duh. If groups can't be trusted none of them can. On the other hand, if we trust them for one, we trust them for all.
None of the reasons offered here are any different than that seen on the Catholic Church article for their membership rolls. The LDS Church, having such a top-down leadership style has the best chance of reporting accurate numbers (I discount and throw-out the fraud charges completely). Few of the other groups (Protestants) know the difference between the left and right hand; there is no mechanism to limit an individual to a single Church. The quote is referenced; that is all that is needed. Quit choking on gnats. -- Storm Rider 20:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
BFizz, I think you have a really neat idea to break out this debate into topics. I see a lot of room to expand your way of using the topics so I moved the topics up above the summary. Hopefully that's OK. I am back now working on the section summary the way I visualized it. I have this idea of each user occupying a single line in the summary, and then as we come to a consensus we can each edit our own line. So it will show a consensus or not right there, in the same number of lines as there are users. If everyone hates it I'll drop it, I just thought it would be fun. 98.108.141.145 ( talk) 05:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Newspapers pick and choose statistics, often summarizing data and relevant material which would require lengthy discussion. USA Today's format lends itself to this difficulty as they like pithy, easily presented material. I reverted the source because of this tendency, although I suspect the 13 mil is fairly accurate. I would encourage finding the neutral source cited above, verifying that the information quoted was actually as published, and trying to understand how the information was gathered. If the information is based on self reporting by churches, this method is often attacked when used by the Utah based LDS church. I will not revert the source again, however. WBardwin ( talk) 09:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Assuming the article's most current references are used for the statement, edit this sentence until a consensus emerges, noting and signing your changes in the list below.
"His legacy includes several religious denominations, the largest of which, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, claims a membership of more than 13 million and continues to grow worldwide."
"His legacy includes several religious denominations, including [[ The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]] and the Community of Christ, which collectively claim a growing membership of nearly 14 million worldwide."
I deleted my effort at a section summary because I don't think anybody wrote in it besides me, and I think B Fizz's technique is much better. If anyone wants my old summary back, well, there's a thing called the undo button. Proudneutralmormon ( talk) 05:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Looking at Routerone's edits in more detail, and throwing my opinion into the mix:
After Foxe expanded "history" to "a migration of Jews to North America and their subsequent history", Routerone undid the edit, stating "that is not specific or completely accurate wording". I agree with Routerone on that.
Routerone explains that he "remove[d] 'impressive', point of view statement." I don't have any feelings either way.
Before the change (and after the change's reversion) it read:
"... Smith became the mayor of Nauvoo and commander of a large militia. In 1844, after a local newspaper exposed the practice of polygamy within the church and accused Smith of acting the tyrant, Smith and the Nauvoo city council suppressed the paper as a nuisance and then attempted to meet the ensuing outrage by declaring martial law. Accused of treason, he was jailed by Illinois state authorities and was assassinated by a mob."
After the change ( diff) it read:
"... After a local newspaper accused the church of practicing polygamy, Smith supressed the paper, which lead to his arrest and imprisonment at Carthage Jail by the Illinois state authority and subsequent assassination by a mob."
I agree that the older wording is, well, wordy...just a little more than summary detail level. I do have a few issues with Routerone's proposed version. According to me:
I agree with this edit; the Latter Day Saint movement is already mentioned.
Comments? ...but what do you think? ~ B F izz 23:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
The following paragraph was removed by another editor. It appears citations would be required before the material could be placed in the article. Discussion. WBardwin ( talk) 03:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 20 |
Reviewing these sections, may I make a few comments?
Would it be worthwhile to include a quick mention of the Golden plates#Unsuccessful retrieval attempts? This could further illustrate how JSJr acknowledged his own 'treasure hunting' and considered it to have initially impeded him from receiving the plates (assuming the quotations used in that article are authoritative).
The brief mentions of the Urim and Thummim somewhat confusing. Wasn't the breastplate mentioned in the "Golden Plates" section, part of the urim and thummim, or attached to it? These seer stones are also considered by the Latter-day Saints to be bound into a set of spectacles. The article states that he put the seer stones in the bottom of his hat, but not all the sources cited agreed that they were 'in the bottom of his hat' (I wonder if the stones detached from the spectacles or something). I also wonder about the credibility of the quotes given, were they first-hand witnesses? Some obviously were. Despite the ambiguity of the historicity of the situation, I think these brief references to the Urim and Thummim could be expressed better.
And finally, have you seen how many of the citations are Bushman? Or how many times the article states: "According to Bushman..." No matter how great of a source Bushman may be, the article becomes Bushman's article if we are always citing him. This isn't an article on Bushman. I think some items could easily be re-referenced, without needing to change the text at all. For example: 'According to Richard Bushman, "From then on, Joseph's life revolved around the plates."' It seems obvious from the later-given fact that he "dictated most of the Book of Mormon to Cowdery between early April and late June" that he was absorbed in the plates. Whether Bushman was trying to indicate that this period of his life revolved around the plates, or if he was implying that the entire rest of his life had changed direction because of the plates, there are probably many other sources we could find that would say the same thing.
I haven't changed anything in the article yet but do invite others to act upon my suggestions as they see fit, according to consensus. Also note that the two articles I linked to in this comment seem to be somewhat one-sided supporting the general LDS view at the moment. -- B F izz ( e• t• c) 07:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
More sources are generally better than fewer, so I think we should leave Bushman and add other refs. On stability ... Though we are all grateful for the removal of vandalism, how are changes supposed to stick if we undo everything that isn't written by ourselves!? As a newcomer, I worry 'stability' might just be a euphemism for 'protracted edit war.' However, because there is basically a good narrative flow to the article, we should generally have more discussion than less to prevent mangling the good parts.-- Adlib24 ( talk) 19:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I've made some changes to the "Book of Mormon" section, please be so kind as to review the changes. There remain, if I counted correctly, 8 direct quotations from Bushman in the text of the article, which, in my opinion, is too much. Several of the quotations are prosy and don't really communicate anything about JSJr, but rather Bushman's opinion or impression of him. I figured before removing the following two quotations I should check for consensus:
My point is that Bushman is one person, and perhaps when the article is using "according to Bushman" it should really refer to a relevent group affected by Smith. Bushman in and of himself cannot represent such groups. —Preceding unsigned comment added by B Fizz ( talk • contribs) 21:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Since the section doesn't deal directly with Smith, I propose that we reduce the "succession" material significantly. Minimal information about Strang, Joseph III, Young, and perhaps Rigdon should suffice. Do the rest of you agree, or do you think more information would be necessary? -- B F izz ( e• t• c) 23:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Just to explain a little my edit on the First Vision section: The theophany article states that it is an appearance of diety to man. A recent edit changed the word "God" to "an angel," but not all angels are considered diety so I changed it back to "God" since that is the meaning of the word theophany, applied to this context. I also modified the comment made about the various accounts of the first vision, merging it with the nearby Bushman citation and changing the wording to be a little more apologetic. -- B F izz ( e• t• c) 04:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I noticed this diff on my watchlist, a reversion by User:John Foxe of an anonymous editor's removal of the item about the play Angels in America. I'm not comfortable with the material that was restored, for three reasons:
I'm completely unfamiliar with the play myself, so if anyone watching this page has direct knowledge of it, can you help clear up these concerns? I'd tag it with something but I'm not sure if "citation needed" is the right fit for what I'm seeking. alanyst / talk/ 00:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
This section seems to be one that is constantly involved in edit wars. For some time, I have tried to think of what is the best way to approach it, and I have not decided whether the content even needs changing, but after taking a second look, I think the refs need some improvement. One major problem is that most of the cited references are not linked to entries in the reference section. Specifically, unlinked are in 6) Smith1838b, 7) Harris 1833, Hale 1834, Clark 1842, Turner 1851, Mather 1880, 8) Roberts 1830, 9) Bennet 1893 and Chase 1833. Another problem is that the citations are in part misleading, because the discussion in the footnotes does not link the citation to the main text. Specific problems:
The footnote suggests that Quinn's claim seems to be that Smith participated in a widespread phenomena of treasure hunting. The inference from the main text seems to be that Smith himself was readily caught up in the craze. Does Quinn claim that Joseph Smith was a "crazed" treasure seeker? Joseph Smith History(JSH) 1:56 seems to suggest otherwise, as Smith persuaded Stoal to stop looking. So, nevermind the controversy around Quinn, but if someone has Quinn, let's just make sure Quinn really believes Smith was a gung-ho treasure hunter, and not merely the more minor participant that Smith himself suggests.
I think the reference got mangled, it is clear from JSH 1:56 that the attempts were "mostly unsuccessful," but not at all clear that Smith claims to have acted as a seer for pay. ( I don't doubt this, I just want to make sure the ref is clear: being paid to be a moneydigger is not the same thing as being paid to be a seer).
This is rather a critical issue, because the descriptions of how Smith used seer stones, which I agree with, I have usually heard in the context of translating the Book of Mormon, not in the context of treasure seeking. Do every single one of these sources ascribe Joseph Smith as using seer stones to find treasures? If not there has been a conflation of how Smith used stones, with the more fringe claim that Smith readily used them to find treasure. Main text should probably be rewritten "process for using seer stones as"to bring it more inline with refs.
I think this is fine, but we could probably find other refs besides just Roberts that make this claim. Isn't it true that he did not exclusively use the chocolate seer-stone to translate? I might add 'in part' or 'among other means' to the main text for the sake of accuracy.
Well there you go...sound off mighty editors! -- Adlib24 ( talk) 19:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
This page is more of an advertisement than an article. It is one sided and only tells of Smith's dealing within his church, and bares no mention of the negative aspects of his life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtf612 ( talk • contribs) 01:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
For your amusement, and perhaps as a relevant general observation of the article: a word cloud from the JSJr article's text: Wordle: Wikipedia: Joseph Smith
I was going to post the actual picture...but didn't want to go through the trouble of uploading and everyting =P
--...but what do you think? ~ B F izz ( talk) 02:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
As a Mormon, I find this page very biased and argumentative in tone. I am just fine including factual parts of Joseph Smith's life that are controversial or negative, but the tone of this article is judgemental and biased. For example, look at the difference between this page and the article on Muhammad Muhammad. It is strikingly different in tone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgardunia ( talk • contribs) 15:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
As far as POV goes, consider: I believe it to be universally accepted that people who knew Joseph Smith believed him to either be a fraud & scam artist of terrible infamy or a prophet of God. That's an extreme range. Few fell in the middle, and thus few historical accounts come across as objective. It is reasonable to conclude from this fact that whatever Smith did, and whoever he was, caused both reactions. Therefore, to properly and accurately portray Joseph Smith, an article must have enough and adequate examples of his actions and life so that a reader understands why both parties felt the way they did. If a person reads an article about Joseph Smith and does not understand both sides, then that article is deficient since it does not explain the reality of the universally accepted fact that Joseph Smith caused both reactions.
As I read this article, I can understand why people felt he was a charlatan, but I have a hard time understanding why people would think he was a prophet. So he lived in various places, was arrested, published a religious book, proclaimed new and different religious doctrines, founded a city, ran for president, was murdered, etc.--so what? Those things do not explain why anyone would think him to be a prophet. Therefore, something is lacking. A person's believe in Smith as a prophet is based more on his effects on them than dates and places. Many believed they witnessed him perform miracles, such as dozens of healings when the Mormons arrived in the area that would become Nauvoo. Similarly, those with him in Zion's Camp claimed he performed miracles then, regardless of the mission's ineffectiveness at achieving its initial aims. Regardless of whether such miracles happened (and it is not the place of an encyclopedia to demonstrate or claim whether miracles did or did not occur, since they--perhaps by their very nature--are notoriously difficult to prove), it is a fact that his followers believed they had happened, and that fact is worthy of mention since it has much to do with their belief and devotion, and thus an understanding of Joseph Smith. 66.249.100.228 ( talk) 21:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
So we have: miracles, charisma, The Book of Mormon, and then martyrdom so far in this discussion. Martyrdom didn't cause people to follow Joseph Smith during his life, obviously, so that narrows it down to the first three. Of course, being a Mormon and a former missionary for the LDS church I can tell you from first hand experience that all these things pale in comparison to (when talking about reasons why people convert and why Joseph's story is significant to them) the converting power of the Spirit of God (The witness from the Holy Ghost) which was sent from God to witness unto all men the truth (dependant on their hearts being right enough before God). Yes, all truly converted Mormons know this but apparently have not mentioned it here yet. Ask any one of them. This is the real influence of Joseph Smith and the cause for his following. This should be included in the article along with a reference or quotation to a part of the Book of Mormon: MORONI 3:5-10 which is basically an invitation to find out by direct communication (prayer) with God whether the Book of Mormon is a true book of scripture. The same conversions happen now as they did back then.
Ok now after reading what I just wrote I have to say that this CAN *SOUND* like bigotry, but trust me it isn't. This is all relevant discussion that should be part of the article. A reader not knowing beforehand who Joseph Smith is would be lost without this important info.
By the way, please forgive the lack of writing skills including grammar and sentence structure. I'm doing my best here.
The original post to this discussion was "I find this page very biased and argumentative in tone" and I have to agree. There is no talk of 'Joseph Smith did more for the salvation of mankind than any man who ever walked the earth save Jesus Christ'. This tone is never touched upon in the article but the opposite tone does come through quite a bit: "...participated in a craze for treasure hunting" which biasly leads the reader to believe that Smith was a person caught up with some fascination of precious metals/treasure and thereby fabricated the concept of the Golden Plates. Indeed, the article takes the classic argumentitive approach that is taught in all college english persuasive writing courses: show a little bit (not all) of the opposition's perspective to gain more credulity and then smash it point by point with examples supporting your own point of view. This is routinely done in classes regardless of the truth of the position. So yes this article is highly biased towards the non-mormon/anti-mormon point of view.
To reiterate, the tone of this article currently goes as follows: 'Smith was a man who did this thing and that thing and thereby had a following of people. He was a man fascinated with treasure and thereby incorporated golden plates into his story to gain power. He was a domineering man who used his popular power to throw down his adversaries and submit them to his will and to gain his carnal desires.' So the tone currently goes: normal man, normal man, evil man. A true NPOV article would include the tone: great man and a true prophet of God. Zz55 ( talk) 21:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)Zz55
There is a switch between using Smith and Joseph to refer to Joseph Smith, I assume. To someone like me, I am unable to tell if those are two seperate people, with no knowledge on the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.231.149 ( talk) 14:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Just a random example: "Joseph Smith’s First Vision marked the beginning of the Restoration of Jesus Christ’s Church to the earth. In subsequent years, Christ restored His priesthood and reorganized His Church..."
There are those of us who don't think Christ did anything of the kind. HairyDan ( talk) 00:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
To give an example, I would not do that to the page on Mohammed -- changing every sentence containing "Mohammed did . . . such-and-such" to "Muslims believe Mohammed did . . . such-and-such". It should be obvious. Duh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.62.127.210 ( talk) 14:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Text in the 'Revealed to Smith' section describes Smiths dealings with the editor of the Whig paper 'The Warsaw Signal', Thomas C. Sharp using POV language - "arrogantly and unwisely offended".
Remove this? It could be replaced by the ref'ed quote so that the reader can make their own judgements. UnexpectedBanana ( talk) 19:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Freemasonry Exposed, p. 76, Confessions of John D. Lee, reprint of 1880 ed., p. 153, History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 618, Times and Seasons, Vol. 5, p. 585, Mormonism and Masonry, by E. Cecil McGavin, page 17 and Life of Heber C. Kimball, p. 26. All these say the Smith gave the Masonic signal of distress, why is this not included in the acount of his death? ( talk) 12:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.174.6.167 ( talk)
Could someone please explain how the Extermination Order has been completely excised from the article. It has become phrased in such milk toast terms as:
No mention of an extermination order, no explanation of the cruelty of such an order, the fact that at no other time in American history has anything similar been issued by government, or its impact on Joseph Smith and his role as prophet and leader of this religious group. We do have a statement that comes out of the blue, "Once the Latter Day Saints no longer posed a political threat, Missouri leaders realized that Mormon behavior could hardly be classified as treason whereas, as Fawn Brodie has written, the governor's "exterminating order stank to heaven."[80] How does this make sense? No one has explained the presence of an extermination order, that whole section has been white washed and treated as an "executive order" as in the President issued an executive order to pardon two turkeys on Thanksgiving.
Now, when I find this significant event being repeatedly expunged from the introduction, I begin to question if the objective is NPOV, or something which is the exact opposite. Please explain, John, because this looks like it "stinks to heaven". You said you rewrote the body, I assume that this is your work, but I have not verified it. I hope that it is not. Regardless, this event was significant in the life of Joseph Smith and his followers. I wonder if we should refer to the Jewish Holocaust as the result of Hitler's executive order and minor misunderstanding of the German government? -- Storm Rider 02:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
On another note, how does a mob's murder of an incarcerated group turn into an "assassination". That is so sterile as to be wholly lacking in any degree of description that reflects the event. JFK was assassinated. Robert Kennedy and MLK, Jr. were assassinated. Mobs attacking incarcerated black men in the southern jails is not assassination, but lynching and murder. Do you think there is a way we could actually describe the event? I am sure readers will not be overly influenced by sharing history with them. -- Storm Rider 02:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Thereafter "the Saints were bullied and threatened," and they responded in kind. Latter Day Saint families were driven from their farms, and Saints burned buildings belonging to the Missourians. In October 1838 a Mormon contingent skirmished with the Richmond County militia at the Battle of Crooked River. Three Mormons and a Missourian were killed. Missouri Governor Lilburn Boggs declared that the Mormons be "exterminated or driven from the state", an executive order for which there was no formal apology until 1976. A few days later a small party of Missourians surprised and massacred a Latter Day Saint settlement at Haun's Mill.
Joseph Smith wasn't "blazing away with a six-gun"; thus inciting others defend themselves. He was given a pepperbox (5 or 6 shots) by the sheriff--whether it was for Smith's or to makre it look "justified", I don't know. He didn't shoot until his brother Hyrium was shot--so much for the mob "defending itself". He then fired three shots at the mob, hitting no one, before dropping it and running for the window, where he was shot in the back. 68.231.189.108 ( talk) 03:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
You also need add that the pepperbox Joseph Smith had at the time he was shot was given to him by the Sheriff. He kept it in his pocket, did not draw it UNTIL Hyrum was shot, and only discharged about half of it into the mob (2-3 shots, depending on gun); hitting no one. No one Else was armed inside the cell. See BYU.org/Archives, History of the Church and lds.org/Ensign/June. I Demand you change this to the truth, instead of the fabrication you post; making the article even more biased against Smith. 70.171.235.197 ( talk) 00:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC) 1994 "Martryrdom at Carthage". 68.231.189.108 ( talk) 17:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Wrong, John Foxe, it is Very accurate and reliable.I see you haven't looked it up. Besides, the only other references are from the people of Carthage, IL---can we trust what they wrote after lynching and murdering? And, not going after the murderers until an accusation was made? It is obvious everyone Knew who did it, as their faces were obscured. They even later shamelessly declared they had the murderers in their midst after the "trial" concluded on the lack of the accusers showing. So, If they were capable or murder; etc; any reference by them may be purged or fudged to make them look "justified". Besides, were You there?03:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)03:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.189.108 ( talk) 68.231.189.108 ( talk) 17:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I've updated the article to include a sentence that reflects the fact that most Mormon apologists dispute the historical accuracy of Joseph Smith using "seer stones" to search for buried treasure -- a point given an enormous level of importance in the original article, even though it should probably be a minor point warranting, at most, a couple of sentences. The link provided in the page explains in depth the problems that most Mormon scholars would have with these historical accounts -- lack of internal consistency and the fact that they were made by third parties about what someone supposedly told them about Smith and his use of seer stones. So, for balance, I've included a new sentence reflecting scholar skepticism.
On a deeper note, I'm not sure why the use or non-use of seer stones is given so much space (six sentences, by my count) when it really is a minor point to the overall article. I'm sure that a sentence going something like, "Smith was also reported to have extensively used seer stones for treasure hunting --references--, although the accuracy of these reports is disputed by Mormon scholars" --references-- would convey the idea quite nicely. Do we really need six sentences to get this idea across, including an in depth description of the alleged stone as being chocolate colored? If not, I propose to move this information to a footnote or something. It doesn't seem like it's adding that much to the article to me -- too much information for an encyclopedia article.
Any other thoughts on this idea? If needed, perhaps we can put it to a vote. Jjc16 ( talk) 19:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
--> Move to another section?
Meanwhile as a young boy Smith participated in a "craze for treasure hunting."[5] Beginning as a youth in the early 1820s, Smith was paid to act as a "seer," using seer stones in mostly unsuccessful attempts to locate lost items and buried treasure. [6] Smith's contemporaries describe Smith's procedure for using seer stones to hunt for treasure as placing the stone in a white stovepipe hat, putting his face over the hat to block the light, and then "seeing" the information in the reflections of the stone.[7] His preferred stone, which some said he also used later to translate the golden plates, was chocolate-colored and about the size of an egg, found in a deep well he helped dig for one of his neighbors.[8]
During this period Smith said he experienced a visitation from an angel named Moroni[9] who directed him to a long-buried book, inscribed on golden plates, which contained a record of God's dealings with ancient Israelite inhabitants of the Americas. This record, along with other artifacts (including a breastplate and "seer stones" that Smith referred to as the Urim and Thummim), was buried in a hill near his home. On September 22, 1827, Smith said that after four years of waiting and preparation, the angel allowed him to take possession of the plates and other artifacts. Almost immediately thereafter, Smith recounts that local people tried to discover where the plates were hidden.[10]
Smith claims to have translated these plates of Gold by means of the Urim and Thummim seer stones. Third party accounts also claim that Smith used other seer stones for other activities, including placing a chocolate colored stone in the bottom of a stovepipe hat to look for a silver mine (insert references). However, the historical accuracy of the third party claims is disputed by some scholars (insert my reference).
--> Move to another section?
Smith left his family farm in October 1825 and was hired by Josiah Stowel, of nearby Chenango county, to search for a Spanish silver mine by gazing at his seer stone.[11] In March 1826, as a result of his using his seer stone to search for the silver mine, Smith was charged with being a "disorderly person and an impostor" by a court in nearby Bainbridge.[12]
--> Move to another section
Smith also met Emma Hale during this period and married her on January 18, 1827. Emma eventually gave birth to seven children, three of whom died shortly after birth. The Smiths also adopted twins.[13] (See Children of Joseph Smith, Jr.)
As I explained earlier, if we want to put more stuff in about seer stones (arguably an interesting part of Smith's life) then we should make a separate section. The changes I've introduced are for a very condensed edit of the Golden Plates section, leaving out a lot of the seer stone information. If we still want to include it, move it to another section!
What does everyone else think? Jjc16 ( talk) 17:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
In regard to the impartiality of the BYU faculty, I recall Mark Twain's take on the testimony of the Eight Witnesses, "I couldn't feel more satisfied and at rest if the entire Whitmer family had testified." Hi540 ( talk) 18:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
John--
And who are you (or I) to decide that this research ISN'T good? The proper thing to do is to put it into the article. If BJU had claimed that Mormonism is a cult AND produced actual research giving reasons why they were a cult and the research seemed credible, then why not? At the same time, I might throw in a few quotes disputing the legitimacy of their research, if such quotes exist. If the quotes don't exist, then no. But, in any case, as editors, it is not our job to decide which research is good and which isn't -- only to provide such research to the public. I don't think anyone here has an a priori reason why we should reject the research from BYU -- other than the rather specious reason that it was "paid for by the Mormon church". So what? Like I said, I've worked personally with several good professors who graduated from and did research at BYU. I think they, and all of the other professors I know at that university, would be offended by the challenge to their academic integrity that this line of thinking implies.
Furthermore, the professors at BYU can't find reasons to doubt the veracity of the statements about Smith's treasure hunting if none existed. If you read the article carefully, the BYU professors never "pull rank" and point to revelation or something silly like that. They systematically go through the different accounts that deal with this situation and, one by one, raise questions about the accounts that have been recorded. It's a valid critical approach to any historical topic, and it is one that deserves to be included in this article for balance. Jjc16 ( talk) 00:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
"Mormonism" (LDS) IS a cult. Look up the word "cult". Any organization with rituals--Methodist Church, Masons, Boy Scouts--are cults. This is not a bad connotation. Let's get past it. 68.231.189.108 ( talk) 17:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
(new indent) The problem is that none of this is mentioned in the article. Joseph is said to have identified the Urim and Thummim, but their use is not indicated. Worse, under the section entitled Golden Plates the readers see, treasure hunting, seer stone, stovepipe hat, preferred stone to translate. 2nd paragraph, visitation by Moroni in 1827, gold plates and purpose, breastplate, Urim and Thummim hidden in hill. 3rd paragraph, go back to 1825 for Spanish mine, 1826 for trial on using seer stones, 4 paragraph - marriage to Emma. All that under Golden Plates, but very little of it has anything to do with, but we get a huge dose of seer stones.
Proposal: I am not arguing against discussing seer stones, I am proposing that we don't cover the translation process well, Smith's own words are completely excluded from the article on this topic, and we don't really address the section topic of Golden Plates. We can do better, we can be more balanced, and we can include more information. Does this make sense? Just read the article, I know John would choke at this type of writing because it is so poor. Chronological events are confusing interspersed, main topic is ignored, and a plethora of secondary information takes center stage. Does this make sense? -- Storm Rider 00:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Fascinating discussion - I'd never dare to try to improve the main page but if anyone is interested in light relief at this point, here's my take on Urim and Thummim: http://sexualfables.com/the-sorcerers-apprentice.php - Joseph Smith, Herman Melville anyone? When objectivity fails, try something else. Martin Blythe ( talk) 22:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
70.171.235.197 ( talk) 13:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC) I ask you write Brigham Young as successor; footnote "disputed". You can dispute or contest anything, but the Majority of LDS went to Utah at his guidance.[Special:Contributions/70.171.235.197|70.171.235.197]] ( talk) 13:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
70.171.235.197 ( talk) 15:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Maybe. Most US Presidential elections were disputed, for example:we certainly contested Schwarzenegger's "election" in CA (I don't know Anyone who got to vote on it). Even though "disputed", he Is Governator. I'm sorry you're in the C of C; I didn't meant to abrogate your right to an opinion. There is discrepancy and controversy in every faith. 70.171.235.197 ( talk) 15:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
70.171.235.197 ( talk) 19:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Neutral--Ha! What about the remarks about Smith marrying married women, promising 10 virgins for each convert? These are opinion. Also, the "majority of the minority". This doesn't pan out. 70.171.235.197 ( talk) 19:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
John Foxe: Smith never "married previously married women." This is again rumor; probaly by the 'Expositor'. 68.231.189.108 ( talk) 17:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
(UTC) 70.171.235.197 ( talk) 00:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Look up your own article on "Fanny Alger"--it proves by DNA evidence Smith bore no children by anyone but Emma Smith. He constantly declared he had only one wife You contradict yourselves. 70.171.235.197 ( talk) 00:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
The writer inferred he was C of C--this was a poor example, by the way, if he was so all-knowing. As we said it wasn't started until 1872, anybody could have looked that up, and it was almost after the controversy. So, a Few think Brigham Young wasn't the direct Successor? They are a very small minority--maybe 10%. So, maybe I get a log in, that makes me "righter"? Or "less right" if I don't? Did being President necessarily make George Bush "righter"? Of course not....Fact and the Truth stay the same. Are you Afraid of something?
68.231.189.108 (
talk) —Preceding
undated comment added
03:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC).
Hey all.
Just a thought that roughly half of the "Early Years" section seems to focus on the "Craze" (contextual connotation likely meaning fad then, but could be associated with 'crazy' in current context)of treasure-hunting and looking-stones. I understand this being presented, but by its large focus it could mislead one into thinking that the majority of Joseph Smith's early years were spent on these endeavors.
No mention is given to painful leg surgeries which could have cost him the use of his leg. Or the nature of his farming duties. Or the different religious leanings he had during those years. Or his love for the game of stick-pulling. Or the religious divisions within his family. Or his relationship with his older brother Hyrum and his respect for his other siblings. Or the role his Father Joseph Smith Sr. played in Joseph's upbringing?
I am not concerned about the facts presented, just that the fixation on Joseph's apparent interest in treasure hunting leads this article to a pretty darkened and myopic outcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiandy ( talk • contribs) 23:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree--it was easier to find gold than to dig ditches--many probably did it. The fact he was tried when he failed (Not convicted) is taken out of context to make Joseph Smith look like a con man, now trying to dupe people into a new faith---it is biased and presented untruely. 68.231.189.108 ( talk) 03:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi John,
I've spent many hours studying Joseph's life with an open mind and an interest in all facets of his life. I am not surprised to learn that the boy who refused alcohol during painful leg surgery grew to an adult who might drink socially. I do not refute the claims that a man who treated women and children with the greatest respect might have been married to more than one woman or to women much younger than him (I ascribe to a historical contextual approach when judging an individual and do not find this as disturbing as those of our day and age might based on modern norms and culture). So please understand my concern is not the documentation of the existence of practices or characteristics others will take issue with. My major concern is that the overall tone of this article seems to really miss the mark of Joseph's religious impact, the broad belief sytem he had, the characteristics that endeared him (and offended others) to his friends, his role within his own family, the timeline of the founding (restoration) of the Church of Jesus Christ (LDS), his martyrdom and its influence on church members and opponents and many other profound accomplishments attributed to Joseph Smith in his brief life of 38 years.
I have gone back and read through the discussion history as you suggested and am still concerned at the balance of the article. From studying the discussion I understand that much of the issue has to do with the POV and natural bias of each contributer. The problem is that when you try to balance those who view Joseph as a heretic or cult leader with those who have reverence or a position of great respect for him, the entire article may be suspect. no offense to contributors here, but the reality is people are not likely drawn to study Joseph Smith unless they are a follower or a detractor. And a mere compromise will yield even less truth as everything of factual value that reveals positive or negative insight will be criticized. In the end you are left with nothing but the musical equivalent of 'Gospel Punk' or the culinary equivalent of 'Spinach Pudding.' Thus, despite many hours of dedicated effort and input, what remains is a confusing and narrow article about a man who some call wicked and others the greatest American of the 19th Century.
My two-bits is a new outline. This outline might include a brief history not just extracted from, but representative of his own journals, followed by common criticisms or divergent opinions. Finally a short outline on the influence and impact Joseph's life plays in forming common LDS belief and practice. You might be interested in the two newly available volumes titled The Joseph Smith Papers (available through josephsmithpapers.org) which contain exact replicas of Joseph's own journals, meeting minutes, and correspondences. These would help in the foundational preparation for an outline of his history in his own words.
While this might not satisfy Smith detractors, it would seem to show the same respect for the founding prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints as is given on Wikipedia for most of the founders and leaders of other major religions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.60.41.15 ( talk) 21:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, John. I've followed your references but still do not see the point you are making here. Are you suggesting that using Joseph's own writings would be a biased and unreliable source? If so then we must throw out any auto-biographical writings. Juxtaposing your reference to the Southern States perspective(pre-civil war) with Joseph's writings seems unfair. It is clear through the common lens of history that the politic positions of the South were flawed. That does not seem to be the interpretation fair-minded historians have of Joseph Smith today. To the contrary, PBS' own documentary series was titled, "Joseph Smith: American Prophet." The LDS Church is widely respected for their small 'c' conservative practices and their respectful approach to the communities in which they reside. Their humanitarian work throughout the world, and their fundamental political neutrality are held in high regard by all who have taken the time to fairly research their actions as a Church. Do you personally hold Joseph Smith in no higher regard than the Slavery-tolerant South of the early to mid 1800s? Again, considering Joseph Smith remains a revered religious figure to millions worldwide, why is this article so negative in its tenor as compared to other religious figures (i.e. Mohammed, Pope John Paul)? I'm not looking for a glowing history, just a fair article sensitive in tone to those who still hold Joseph in high regard and to a man who backed his beliefs up with his own life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.199.159.196 ( talk) 07:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I've been looking at this whole NPOV thing and trying to put my finger on why this whole article still has such a negative point of view. I think I'm getting closer to it. First of all the "Mormon" side of the article is coming from Richard Bushman, a Mormon who is admittedly selected because of his fair-minded neutrality. That gives the article the illusion of fairness and neutrality. But then the "critical" elements are presented by the likes of John C. Bennett and Fawn Brodie, clearly unreliable researchers with strong biases which they bring to their writings. So in the math of it we have several selected neutral references combined with several negative references. That seems to me to add up to a heavy negative bias. Consider Wikipedia's own take on two of the sources for this article; Fawn Brodie: [Review on book on Thomas Jefferson] "Doesn't she [Brodie] know about making the theory fit the facts instead of trying to explain the facts to fit the theory? It's pretty fascinating, like working out a detective story, but she doesn't play fair." "Brodie became obsessed with the notion that Nixon had engaged in a homosexual relationship with his good friend Bebe Rebozo." "She [Brodie] even claimed that in dreams, she and Jefferson became "man and wife." Not surprisingly, Bernard Brodie is supposed to have muttered, "God, I'm glad that man is out of the house."
John C. Bennett While Bennett was mayor, he was caught in private sexual relations with women in the city. He told the women that the practice, which he termed "spiritual wifery," was sanctioned of God and Joseph Smith, and that Joseph Smith did the same. When discovered, he privately confessed his crimes, produced an affidavit that Joseph Smith had no part in his adultery and was disciplined accordingly. Although he vowed to change, he continued his scandalous behavior. When he was caught again, his indiscretions were publicly exposed and he was removed from his church positions, excommunicated from the church and stripped of public office. After Bennett left Nauvoo in May 1842, he claimed he had been the target of an attempted assassination by Nauvoo Danites, who were disguised in drag. He soon became a bitter antagonist of Joseph Smith and the Latter Day Saint church, reportedly even vowing to drink the blood of Joseph Smith, Jr. In 1842, he wrote a scathing exposé of Joseph Smith, entitled History of the Saints, accusing Smith and his church of crimes such as treason, conspiracy to commit murder, prostitution, and adultery.
So what is this article missing? The testimony of the living followers of the Church Joseph restored. You might start with this one, by Jeffrey Holland, LDS Apostle from the Church's General Conference this month;
"...Before closing the book [of Mormon], Hyrum turned down the corner of the page from which he had read, marking it as part of the everlasting testimony for which these two brothers were about to die. I hold in my hand that book, the very copy from which Hyrum read, the same corner of the page turned down, still visible. Later, when actually incarcerated in the jail, Joseph the Prophet turned to the guards who held him captive and bore a powerful testimony of the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon.8 Shortly thereafter pistol and ball would take the lives of these two testators. As one of a thousand elements of my own testimony of the divinity of the Book of Mormon, I submit this as yet one more evidence of its truthfulness. In this their greatest—and last—hour of need, I ask you: would these men blaspheme before God by continuing to fix their lives, their honor, and their own search for eternal salvation on a book (and by implication a church and a ministry) they had fictitiously created out of whole cloth? Never mind that their wives are about to be widows and their children fatherless. Never mind that their little band of followers will yet be “houseless, friendless and homeless” and that their children will leave footprints of blood across frozen rivers and an untamed prairie floor.9 Never mind that legions will die and other legions live declaring in the four quarters of this earth that they know the Book of Mormon and the Church which espouses it to be true. Disregard all of that, and tell me whether in this hour of death these two men would enter the presence of their Eternal Judge quoting from and finding solace in a book which, if not the very word of God, would brand them as imposters and charlatans until the end of time? They would not do that! They were willing to die rather than deny the divine origin and the eternal truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. For 179 years this book has been examined and attacked, denied and deconstructed, targeted and torn apart like perhaps no other book in modern religious history—perhaps like no other book in any religious history. And still it stands. Failed theories about its origins have been born and parroted and have died—from Ethan Smith to Solomon Spaulding to deranged paranoid to cunning genius. None of these frankly pathetic answers for this book has ever withstood examination because there is no other answer than the one Joseph gave as its young unlearned translator. In this I stand with my own great-grandfather, who said simply enough, “No wicked man could write such a book as this; and no good man would write it, unless it were true and he were commanded of God to do so." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.199.150.233 ( talk) 01:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Why is there no appearance of the JS daguerreotype or any mention of it in the article besides in external links? It is largely believed to be legitimate, and would be a better representation of JS than any paintings that exist? A good source for discussion on the topic is at http://www.photographfound.com/, of which I have no affiliations. It should be here in my opinion. Twunchy ( talk) 21:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Part of the Joseph Smith Jr.#Growth and persecution section currently reads as follows:
Following the completion of the Book of Mormon, Smith rarely any longer used his seer stone; and later "translations" were not based on purported ancient writings. He now received supernatural direction "whether a text lay before him or not."[34] From the early 1830s came the Book of Moses (which included a long passage about the biblical Enoch) as well as an attempt to revise the Bible.
The phrase "later 'translations' were not based on purported ancient writings" is incorrect: Smith later translated the Book of Abraham from an "Egyptian Book of the Dead."
The phrase "the Book of Moses...as well as an attempt to revise the Bible" may also be erroneous: to my knowledge, the Book of Moses was a part of his attempt to revise the Bible.
Also odd is the phrase "attempt to revise the Bible." He didn't attempt, I'm quite sure he did. However, using the phrase revised the Bible could be better clarified, for example: revised the King James translation of the Bible.
The phrase supernatural direction is also odd...how about divine direction?
While I'm hacking away at odd phrases, allow me to also point out the awkwardness of rarely any longer.
Comments? Feel free to implement my suggestions...otherwise if no one objects then I will address these issues myself in a day or two. ...but what do you think? ~ B F izz ( talk) 08:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)'
The phrase "as Bushman has written" appears twice in the article, and the phrase "as Richard Bushman has written" appears three times. Several months ago, I requested that we move away from using Bushman's words so frequently in the article. I don't mind so much now, the Bushman quotes add a little prosy-pizazz to the article, but can we please vary the wording when presenting a Bushman quote? ...but what do you think? ~ B F izz ( talk) 09:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Joseph Smith was convicted in a court of law of glass looking on March 20, 1826 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.174.18.39 ( talk) 19:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Wrong. Where did you get this , SineBot? He was accused, but acquitted. 68.231.189.108 ( talk) 17:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
The existence of this category is rather odd...which clergy is it referring to when it says "the clergy"? Any/all clergy...aparently. In any event...it is a technically correct categorization, I suppose. ...but what do you think? ~ B F izz ( talk) 02:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Whether or not Smith was actually convicted for a vagrancy-type offense (i.e., traveling around the countryside working for hire in a disfavored profession--of which he was, in fact, guilty, though today we would say such vagrancy-type laws are unconstitutional) is debated. Most of the witnesses to the trial say he was convicted, but one said he was discharged, and one said it was not an actual trial. Oliver Cowdrey, who was not present, said he was acquitted. So obviously, secular scholars say he was likely convicted, while apologists say he likely was not convicted. Given the lack of consensus, I don't think it's appropriate to include him in a category. COGDEN 18:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Good point--but no one can base anything on what the people of MO, NY, and IL wrote. They tried to castrate him; the Gov. of IL ordered Smith's death, etc--anyone like that is not above lying, perjury, or falsification of records.I did see a city record saying "acquitted"; will post when I find the ref. 68.231.189.108 ( talk) 14:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Every witness to Joseph Smith's translation of the Book of Mormon said that he looked at a stone in his hat. Arguing that Smith never said how he translated is arguing from silence. There is no evidence for anything else but the hat and just Mormon embarrassment at how silly this method must seem to most prospective converts today. Hi540 ( talk) 20:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Surely Bushman elaborated on other methods of translation? In any event, the accounts of people who witnessed the translation should be used carefully. See WP:PRIMARY for discussion on that. Specifically note the policy that "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." I very much agree with that. Stating or even implying that the "only" method of translation used was the "magic translation via the hat" should be avoided unless a reliable source asserts that such is the case. ...but what do you think? ~ B F izz ( talk) 19:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I thought about it, but I won't remove it. It is intended to chastise an editor that has a history without any degree of neutrality and one that provides no benefit to Wikipedia. As a higher standard of expertise and knowledge of editors evolves, she would not qualify. Her only interest is to offend and twist history to meet her own POV. However, I will stop responding to her rather ignorant comments until such time as a demonstration of knowledge is made. Moving on.
Fox is correct, Bushman barely mentions the process of translation in his most recent book or in the other books that I have. Regardless, Penumbra's edit above provides some excellent sources that demonstrate a diverse translation process. Maybe we can rewrite the article to include this fact? - Storm Rider 02:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
John Foxe notes, "The FAIR list was, of course, compiled by Mormon apologists and omits some important eye witness testimony." It was indeed compiled by Mormon apologists, however, there are no deliberate omissions. The list is intended to be as comprehensive as possible, and as FAIR becomes aware of additional quotes/references from any contemporary sources, they will be added to the list. Roger Penumbra ( talk) 16:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I think we can say that he translated by placing a stone in a hat and placing the hat over his face to exclude the light, and then just note, perhaps even in a footnote, that other methods of translation were also suggested. Although a few people (William Smith, and a very early Martin Harris) suggest other possible ways such as actually wearing a set of stone spectacles and an attached breastplate (William, though clearly William never actually witnessed this), looking through one of the sides of the spectacles (I think Harris suggested that, since the spectacles were apparently made for a giant--Harris never actually saw this, either, but did later see Smith use the stone in a hat). But nobody says that Smith did not use the stone in a hat method, and there are numerous eye-witnesses to this method, and a virtual consensus among Mormon and secular scholars that he used this method (possibly in addition to other methods, at least according to some apologists). COGDEN 19:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
My concern about the current phrasing is that it states that Smith translated the plates. This article needs to tread very carefully around the reality of the translation process: while there is no reason to be insulting towards the LDS, there is also no reason to echo the belief that any translation occurred. Saying that the act that Smith performed was "translation" implies that the golden plates were actually a testament from a supernatural being. The article needs to stick to language showing that Smith and other witnesses described the act as translation.— Kww( talk) 23:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
This section contains some good information, but it is presented in a childish-sounding way (no offense meant to anybody). Alexanderaltman ( talk) 03:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I commented out the following citation, which followed the statement that Smith wounded three men with his pepper-box:
<ref>
Hay, J. Atlantic Monthly. Richards was unharmed. Taylor was shot several times, but survived. (One of the bullets glanced off his pocket watch.)Taylor, John. Witness to the Martyrdom. pp. 91, 114–115.;Leanord, Glen. A Place of Peace, a People of Promise. Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book. Taylor, close behind the Prophet, had been using Markham's 'rascal-beater' to knock against the muskets and bayonets thrusting into the room.
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |chapterurl=
and |origmonth=
(
help)</ref>
The webpage at the beginning of the citation says nothing (that I can find with my ctrl-f skills) about Smith shooting and wounding anyone. The rest of it is just a footnote explaining what happened to Richards and Taylor. Can someone clarify what is going on here? ...but what do you think? ~ B F izz ( talk) 05:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I shall never forget the deep feeling of sympathy and regard manifested in the countenance of Brother Joseph as he drew nigh to Hyrum, and, leaning over him, exclaimed, `Oh! my poor, dear brother Hyrum!' He, however, instantly arose, and with a firm, quick step, and a determined expression of countenance, approached the door, and pulling the six-shooter left by Brother Wheelock from his pocket, opened the door slightly, and snapped the pistol six successive times; only three of the barrels, however, were discharged. I afterwards understood that two or three were wounded by these discharges, two of whom, I am informed, died...
This quote is erroneous. One pistol was given to Smith, only, by the sheriff. He hit no one with it. That's why you can't find names of who was "wounded" or "killed". 68.231.189.108 ( talk) 14:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Wrong. As I said, and, how could a "Mormon" have sneaked in "guns" past a very hostile crowd? And, it Was the Sheriff. Your reference is wrong. I will post when I find it. 68.231.189.108 ( talk) 19:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Also, I've never heard that Hyrum was shot in the face. I put an annoying {{ fact}} tag on that one...can someone find a source to back that one up, please? ...but what do you think? ~ B F izz ( talk) 05:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Update: I found an Eyewitness account by John Taylor, now how to source it? Apparently it is from History of the Church, 7:99-108. Also: whoever does the citation, please also replicate it on Death of Joseph Smith, Jr.#Attack by the mob since it also includes the statement of when Hyrum exclaimed "I am a dead man."...but what do you think? ~ B F izz ( talk) 05:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I Think the early years section has gotten much better. Thank you all. Now I also have sources other than Joseph Smith himself showing he did share the first vision with others before 1830. I am following up on more. After I have gathered and organized all of them I will upload them at one time and I will delete this unprovable, undocumentable, and non-neutral statement:"Although this experience was unknown to Smith's followers until the 1840s. . . . "
Unless someone can convince me why it should stay. I thought we already debated this one to death and made some good compromises in the last section I started. So, what's up with adding unprovable, undocumented, non-neutral statements? Or, am I just so biased to the LDS perspective that in some way I am just not getting it. Please help me understand. Wmgcf ( talk) 18:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I think the current sentence for the first vision in the early years is the most fair so far.:
The sources I was talking seem to be well known to the people participating in this discussion. We may not have the diary of the preacher who Joseph said persecuted him for telling the first vision. However, there were so many people close to him during that time who wrote later, like his mother, who affirmed what he said. That is the evidence I was talking about. I would be seriously surprised if an account was found from 1830 of someone who knew Joseph in the early years and was surprised by his account of the first vision. And I think we have put to rest the absurd arguments against inclusion of the first vision in the early years. Anyway, I mainly wanted a reasonable mention of the first vision in the early years. Thank you Wikipedia. Next week I want to work on something else. WMGCF 98.108.141.145 ( talk) 03:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Hey all.
Seeing no further discourse on my past post I would like input before including a new section.
One unique facet of Joseph Smith's life and influence is the on-going belief of his divine and prophetic role as Prophet, Seer, and translator still held by Church members today. In essence that his religion (the religion he believed) continues to grow and be embraced by millions worldwide.
Here is my proposal;
Modern Testators of the Ministry of Joseph Smith
While over 150 years has passed since the death of Joseph Smith, many continue to hold him in high regard as a great prophet and translator of scripture. In the October 2009 General Conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Elder Jeffrey R. Holland (Apostle and member of the Quorum of the Twelve) addressed Church members as follows:
"...Before closing the book [of Mormon], Hyrum turned down the corner of the page from which he had read, marking it as part of the everlasting testimony for which these two brothers were about to die. I hold in my hand that book, the very copy from which Hyrum read, the same corner of the page turned down, still visible. Later, when actually incarcerated in the jail, Joseph the Prophet turned to the guards who held him captive and bore a powerful testimony of the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon.
Shortly thereafter pistol and ball would take the lives of these two testators. As one of a thousand elements of my own testimony of the divinity of the Book of Mormon, I submit this as yet one more evidence of its truthfulness. In this their greatest—and last—hour of need, I ask you: would these men blaspheme before God by continuing to fix their lives, their honor, and their own search for eternal salvation on a book (and by implication a church and a ministry) they had fictitiously created out of whole cloth? Never mind that their wives are about to be widows and their children fatherless. Never mind that their little band of followers will yet be “houseless, friendless and homeless” and that their children will leave footprints of blood across frozen rivers and an untamed prairie floor.
Never mind that legions will die and other legions live declaring in the four quarters of this earth that they know the Book of Mormon and the Church which espouses it to be true. Disregard all of that, and tell me whether in this hour of death these two men would enter the presence of their Eternal Judge quoting from and finding solace in a book which, if not the very word of God, would brand them as imposters and charlatans until the end of time? They would not do that! They were willing to die rather than deny the divine origin and the eternal truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. For 179 years this book has been examined and attacked, denied and deconstructed, targeted and torn apart like perhaps no other book in modern religious history—perhaps like no other book in any religious history. And still it stands. Failed theories about its origins have been born and parroted and have died—from Ethan Smith to Solomon Spaulding to deranged paranoid to cunning genius. None of these frankly pathetic answers for this book has ever withstood examination because there is no other answer than the one Joseph gave as its young unlearned translator. In this I stand with my own great-grandfather, who said simply enough, “No wicked man could write such a book as this; and no good man would write it, unless it were true and he were commanded of God to do so." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.199.147.225 ( talk) 16:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the helpful feedback. I had considered revising the section to include a variety of modern statements by varied LDS leaders but agree this might look like "soapboxing." One short quote would seem to evidence the common reagrd of Church members and leaders toward Joseph Smith. Here is a much abbreviated revision, comments?
(Heading)Modern Testators of the Ministry of Joseph Smith
(Body)While over 150 years has passed since the death of Joseph Smith, most LDS church members, including senior church leaders continue to hold him in high regard as a great prophet and translator of scripture as evidenced in the following statement of Jeffrey R. Holland, a member of the Church’s Quorum of the Twelve; “[Joseph Smith’s] life asked and answered the question ‘Do you believe God speaks to man?’ In all else that he accomplished in his brief 38 and a half years, Joseph left us above all else the resolute legacy of divine revelation—not a single, isolated revelation without evidence or consequence … but specific, documented, ongoing directions from God” (“Prophets, Seers, and Revelators,” Ensign, Nov. 2004, p. 8) Source: “Witnesses of the Prophet Joseph Smith,” Ensign, Jan 2009, 10–15 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.199.147.225 ( talk) 05:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I am improving this article my deleting trivial information about Joseph's treasure hunting days and adding the first vision he had - which oddly enough wasn't included. I find it odd that multiple users are trying to undo my revisions and writing messages to me accusing me of vandalism and edit wars- yet those undoing my revisions are not responding to my direct efforts to engage them on the content of the revisions. So I am posting here.
If anyone has a problem with the revisions, then I invite them to discuss the article with me here before undoing my revision. If users undo my revision and fail to discuss content while accusing me of vandalism and edit war, then, I want to invite them to discuss the article here.
Joseph is loved or hated around the world for his religious history, which began with his first vision. While it is true that he did do some treasure hunting, in history he was a religious figure, not a treasure hunter. Wmgcf ( talk) 15:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. Nobody has yet to say anything about the content I added. Exactly what part of the content I added is not "neutral", and why?. Also, nobody has explained why a very lengthy discussion of treasure hunting is "neutral". And, even if the treasure hunting material is documented, how is it relevant to this article? Why should an encyclopedia article include trivial material? We could just as easily argue that the article should include lengthy discussions of the weather in the 1820's and document the crops the smith family grew. All of that could be documented along with treasure hunting. . . so there has to be more of a standard than just documentation to include material in an encyclopedia article. Wmgcf ( talk) 17:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
As a newbie I am beginning to understand what many are telling me about deleting material, so I decided to take a break on deleting material. However I challenge Mr. Foxe to explain to us why it is "neutral" to include a lengthy section on treasure hunting in the early years while claiming that the first vision has to be confined to the church section. Foxe, your statement "there's absolutely no evidence that Smith shared the First Vision with anyone until after the founding of the Church" is a pretty sweeping statement - on what evidence and sources do you base such a broad statement? How can you defend the neutrality of such a statement? I you were presented with new evidence tomorrow would you reconsider? Wmgcf ( talk) 20:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
You're both missing the point. We are not to prove whether or not Smith did this or that. We are to help people understand that millions of his followers believe x, y, and z about him, and that historical records outside of the church assert q, r, and s. While it would be wonderful to get The Truth (tm) out on Wikipedia, that simply can't be done 100% accurately when we're dealing with people who lived and died over a hundred years ago.
I said that I wanted more in this article about the First Vision. COgden has said "the amount said about it (the First Vision) needs to be proportional to its historical (not retrospective religious) importance." I disagree; retrospective religious importance is much more relevant to today's readers than is historical importance. This biography need not be strictly a recounting of historical events; Smith's impact on people today is much more useful to understand than is his impact on people a hundred years ago. As we step chronologically through Smith's life, when he says something happened at some point in time, or when others say something happened at some point, it is at that point that it should be included.
The Hinckley quote in First_Vision#The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints illustrates well one example of how important Joseph Smith, Jr. and the First Vision are to some people who are alive today. Generally, to achieve NPOV, we have presented what Smith's followers believe, and what his critics believe, as well as proven facts and events. Many followers consider the First Vision to be a turning point in Smith's life; whether or not it was, this belief should be clearly presented. ...but what do you think? ~ B F izz ( talk) 00:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
[user:Storm Rider|, [User:COGDEN|, and [User:B Fizz|; thank you for your excellent points. I was trying to illustrate that Mr. Foxe's perspective of trying to restrict what goes in the early years wasn't neutral at all. I think I made my point amply by driving the logic to absurdity. (Before I go further I confess to Wikipedia that I am biased because I am an Elder in the LDS church and a descendant of the Smith family) Using points from the three of you I will attempt to Summarize this section in the smallest amount of words possible. I am drafting new material for the early years with notes and references and I promise not to delete anything anybody else wrote for the next 5 days and if nobody beats me to it, 7 days from today I will add my stuff to the early years. Wmgcf ( talk) 06:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Room for more discussion here. . .
First draft of the section summary by Wmgcf, feel free to improve it, or anyone who I offended when I deleted treasure hunting stuff seven or ten times is welcome to delete the summary for revenge. If you delete the summary instead of editing it I will not send you strange messages calling you a vandal and threatening to block you from Wikipedia. But other users might who didn't actually read this discussion and know I gave you permission might call you a vandal and threaten to block you from Wikipedia, so vandalize thoughtfully! I propose if anyone wants to discuss more that they post it BEFORE the section summary, that way the section summary will always be at the end of the section.
Wmgcf (
talk)
06:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry if I'm beating a dead horse here, but it is my understanding that in the First Vision Joseph did not merely hear the voice of Jesus Christ, he saw and heard both Heavenly Father and his son Jesus Christ. This is a central message in the First Vision as it relates directly to a unique perspective Joseph taught concerning the Godhead, that Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ were two distinct beings and not merely one being in different forms. I would recommend the sentence simply be revised from, "Many years later Smith said he had experienced a theophany around 1820, a vision in which he said he saw and heard the voice of Jesus" to "Many years later Smith said he had experienced a theophany around 1820, a vision in which he said he saw and heard both Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ speak to him." (Reference, Joseph Smith History, 1:17)It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.60.41.56 ( talk) 18:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Section Summary
Our article, in the Zion in Missouri section, currently states:
Smith tried to organize a military response from Kirtland—a revelation had told him that "the redemption of Zion must needs come by power"—but the trek of what came to be called Zion's Camp ended with nothing accomplished.
There has been a recently reverted attempt to clarify the phrase "nothing accomplished." While I agree with the revert—the level of detail was too granular for this article, and it had the flavor of POV—I also agree with the original intent of the reverted content. The scope of "nothing accomplished" should be clarified. Quoth the Zion's Camp article:
Although the march failed in its primary objective, many of its participants became committed loyalists in the movement. When Smith returned to Kirtland, he organized the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, and the First Quorum of the Seventy, choosing primarily men who had served in Zion's Camp.
We should say something like that here, though more succinctly, if possible. We might also consider moving some of the reverted content into the Zion's Camp article. ...but what do you think? ~ B F izz ( talk) 19:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi John. I wonder why you would reference Brodie here as she is clearly an unreliable source (see Wikipedia's own posts on her work). She was in love with Thomas Jefferson, many other researchers questioned her methods, she was heavy into the idea Nixon had a gay lover... . I don't mind criticism and alternate points of view, but am concerned about using manipulated or sketchy evidences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.199.147.225 ( talk) 05:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi John
The more I have looked into your last post the more concerned I have become. I respect the fact that you have researched Fawn Brodie and contributed your findings to Wikipedia. The problem I have is with what I would call 'circular evidencing.' This is quite similar to many of the early anti-Mormon writings where "researchers" would present a false finding, after which other anti-Mormon researchers would quote that 'fact' and the whole falsehood would be accepted and validified based on its frequency of being referenced.
The fact you are quoting Brodie as an expert (her bias seems to throw her more appropriately into the category of skeptic) and then back that up with the fact you yourself have referenced her elsewhere suggests a more narrow reliability, not greater.
My main question becomes, to what degree have you looked fairly and critically into Brodie's research? Have you both read and explored the merits of Nibley's response to Brodie? It appears in your article you simply gave Brodie the last word on Nibley's paper, and Brodie's response was merely rhetorical. In debate that is poor form. Do you concur with Brodie? Could you tell me what some of your findings as you researched Nibley's claims were? No offense, but the majority of your other contributions present information neutral or respectful of the Evangelical Christian history, but not so Mormon history. No doubt my Mormon background may make me more skeptical of criticism and less reliable a contributor on this topic. Your thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.60.41.56 ( talk) 00:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Along this line, I am quite concerned at the narrow scope of referenced researchers. Despite the fact some view Bushman and Brodie as key researchers (I definitely question Brodie here) I'm concerned about the over-referencing of these two. If I handed a paper into one of my profs with over a hundred references and over two-thirds of them were from the same two sources (one only questionably reliable) I would expect to be questioned critically. I mean with whole departments at BYU (which does have a tenured program) devoted to religious studies and Church History I'm sure you could find more than one "reliable" Mormon source (Maxwell? Jensen? Holland? Nibley?).
My apologies if I sound disrespectful of the contributions and efforts here, I just continue to see this article as narrow in its use of reliable references. Please, to those posting and contributing, let's find some other sources than Bushman and Brodie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.199.147.225 ( talk) 03:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
My post was in reference to your rejection of Jensen based on his being a lawyer. You wrote, "Neither is a professional historian: Holland was an English major, and Jensen is a lawyer." That Jensen is more reliable than Brodie was a secondary point.
On another point, I am declaring defeat. If it is already a given that the "Prominent" scholars on Joseph Smith are an obsessed anti-Mormon and one Mormon scholar whose admitted focus was predominantly on the unique foibles and shortcomings of Joseph Smith (guess it would be bad research if we looked at the man's strengths and writings); if this is the foundation of the structure then would be wasting my time (I have kids, a job and a life) and doubt I would be accomplishing anything criticizing the plans. Again, I will summarize my concerns lest any care to pick up my own marathon of hope at a later date.
1. While Joseph Smith's influence on religion, his role as a martyr of American religious freedom, and the legacy of good he left behind, are powerful and arguably unparalleled in modern religious experience; this article focuses predominantly on issues which are more contentious out of context in more modern society (i.e. polygamy, "treasure hunting," militaristic tendencies).
2. Despite the large school of researchers who have written effectively and reliably on the subject of Joseph Smith, the mantra that Brodie and Bushman are the most "prominent" writers on the subject seems to justify their over-usage.
3. Contributors here seem cautious about using LDS researchers because of their potentially biased POV. That is except for Bushman perhaps because he is comfortable finding fault with Joseph. At the same time the most active contributor (graduate of an Evangelical University, Evangelicals as a collective forming potentially the largest community of LDS critics, think Huckabee v. Romney) who plays the greatest role in guiding what is included and reliable is never questioned on his own POV.
4. Despite the fact that a large religious movement (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints) continues to revere Joseph Smith as a great Prophet and revelator, religious sensitivities seem to draw closer to those shown Jim Jones or Tammy Faye Baker than those shown the Catholic Popes, Billy Graham, or the Reverend Martin Luther King. I guess political correctness doesn't apply to Mormons.
I concede that I have not studied Joseph Smith as critically as others here and so need to concede victory here. I merely wish to reflect that as a modern day member of the Church founded by Joseph Smith Jr., the article here is heavy on criticism and light on sensitivity.
Just my POV. Don't worry, I won't go away mad, I'll just go away.
Excelsior! Canadiandy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.199.147.225 ( talk) 04:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
The primary concern mentioned by the anonymous user was "the narrow scope of referenced researchers", and I quite agree. We have reached the point where most everything in the article is referenced, but virtually all references point to Brodie or Bushman. We should look into backing up those referenced statements with more references from varied sources, rather than try to insert new material. If you look at the first 20 or so sources cited, they are varied. Then they turn into Bushman/Brodie for the rest of the article. History of the Church might be a good source to strengthen our reference pool. ...but what do you think? ~ B F izz ( talk) 19:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
The references appear to be in two separate alphabetical groups (at least they are using IE). Also, there are a number of notes referring to Ostlings but there is no book in the reference section for those notes. Those that edit this article more regularly may want to review. Thanks, Alanraywiki ( talk) 00:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing that. I didn't pick up on that setup. Alanraywiki ( talk) 06:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
After browsing the web, it has came to my attention that a professional latter day saint apologetic research organisation has been monitoring this and several other latter day saint related wikipedia articles, and on their site they have made their own review of this and others assessing the content paragraph by paragraph, and citation by citation.
Now upon fairly analysing this article, which can be found section by section at the links below. They have made several valid and carefully researched accusations of citation abuse by the editor "John Foxe" and a couple of others, and to prove this they have cited wikipedia policy in their work and shown with specific examples how the policy has been violated in the various sections of the article. It is not deliberately looking to find fault in wikipedia may I add, as it accepts the parts of the article which are correct via wikipedia policy.
I believe throughly that this could form a good platform on keeping the article in check from Anti-LDS intended editors deliberately tainting the article to their own merits. However, it is also worth noting that the same website is accusing the editor "John Foxe" of deliberately intended spin control in order to make the article appear as negative as possible. This is proven if you at the links which show his abuse of in the article citations. The website also made the following quote on him. I believe that this is vital to be realised, and discussed. The same website also accuses him of citation abuse on a huge number of other LDS articles, I will give the examples on the specific talk pages over time.
In the case of certain LDS articles owned by the editor who uses the pseudonym John "Foxe," he has taken upon himself the task of bringing certain LDS Wikipedia article in line with his definition of "truth." His philosophy is that once an article has been "correctly" written, that it simply needs to be maintained against those who would attempt to heavily modify it in any manner. Following this approach, he has worked his way through a number of articles and worked hard to keep them stable...as long as that stability reflects his desired spin. This allows FAIR to analyze these articles with a high degree of assurance that they will remain close to the form that they are in at the time they are reviewed.
— FAIR Wiki, Quote
Routerone ( talk) 12:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank goodness, I was thinking I was the one in the closet here. I knew something was wrong with this article when I first read it, but I had literally found such a wall around this article I had given up (see previous post). The argument has been made by Foxe before that the reason Brodie and Bushman are so heavily referenced is because that's how encyclopedias do things. But it seems to me if you are trying to act like an encyclopedia you tone down on the inflammatory issues, especially the ones which are speculative. If I had read an article in any formal Encyclopedia with such negative spin I would be shocked. I am now waiting for Foxe to answer the following;
1. What was and is your personal POV on Joseph Smith? 2. While you seem fully immersed in the full range of Anti-Mormon writings, which of Joseph Smith's major writings have you read completely and what is your view on them? The Book of Mormon (531 pages)? Doctrine and Covenants (under 300 pages)? The Joseph Smith Papers (literal photostats directly from Joseph's own writings)? 3. Despite his POV, what evidences do you have that Nibley is unreliable as a critic of Brodie? 4. Why are LDS writers dismissed based on their being English Majors or Lawyers? 5. Why have contributors like yourself allowed such a negative and insensitive tone around a man who is still held in high regard by millions and millions of people; comparing Encyclopedia opening statements on Smith I find;
(Wikipedia) "...financial collapse, and conflict with disaffected members encouraged him to gather the church to the Latter Day Saint settlement in Missouri. There, tensions between Mormons and non-Mormons escalated into the 1838 Mormon War. Smith and his people then settled in Nauvoo, Illinois where they began building a second temple. After being accused of practicing polygamy and of aspiring to create a theocracy, Smith, as mayor of Nauvoo and with the support of the city council, directed the suppression of a local newspaper that had published accusations against him, leading to his assassination by a mob." Within the first two paragraphs we have managed to jam in Church dissension, polygamy, poor economic management, war, religious aspiration (does Wikipedia accuse Luther of "Aspiring to create a theocracy?")and even media control (no mention of the papers actions which led to these events).
Then consider the Britannica(extracted December 5, 2009 from, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/549791/Joseph-Smith)second paragraph (the first paragraph is arguably even more respectful);
(Britannica) "Religious differences within the family and over religious revivals in the Palmyra area left Smith perplexed about where to find a church. When he was 14, he prayed for help, and, according to his own account, God and Jesus Christ appeared to him. In answer to his question about which was the right church, they told him that all the churches were wrong. Although a local minister to whom he related the vision dismissed it as a delusion, Smith continued to believe in its authenticity. In 1823 he received another revelation: while praying for forgiveness, he later reported, an angel calling himself Moroni appeared in his bedroom and told him about a set of golden plates containing a record of the ancient inhabitants of America. Smith found the plates buried in a stone box not far from his father’s farm. Four years later, the angel permitted him to remove the plates and instructed him to translate the characters engraved on their surfaces with the aid of special stones called “interpreters.” Smith insisted that he did not compose the book but merely “translated” it under divine guidance. Completing the work in less than 90 days, he published it in March 1830 as a 588-page volume called the Book of Mormon."
Here Britannica does a very fair job of recording Smith's own History of his events. No preaching, no insensitivity, no fringe issues and no apparent spin for or against. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.199.147.225 ( talk) 19:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your input COgden, but the point still stands that both Britannica and Wikipedia source Bushman and Brodie as major sources yet arrive at completely different tones for their article on Joseph Smith. Is it Britannica that is biased? How else do you explain this without considering bias or data manipulation. Additionally, the FAIR contributors identify their POV clearly by their affiliation. The only way I found Foxe's background was reading through other articles he has posted. I find that at best disingenuous. I do not intend do discredit Foxe's efforts, his passion, or even his integrity. And I have no problem with fair and balanced contributors of any faith presenting article support. I merely point out his POV seems to be under-presented, the article is atypically harsh in its approach to Smith, and LDS POV (Bushman excepted, but even then it seems his references to shortcomings seem to be over-represented considering the whole of his writings) is too readily dismissed. Checking out Brittanica I think you would agree this is by far the most negative and critical in focus and tenor.
I am new to this process, but is there not a jury process for investigating the fairness of this article given its discrepancy with the tone of parallel encyclopedic articles. It seems to me the problems with the article are not merely in the details, but in the very framework and structure of the article and in a hopefully coincidental bias (is it possible us Mormons are too busy at Church meetings, serving missions, and raising larger families to be active in balancing out this article, humour intended). Canadiandy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.199.147.225 ( talk) 20:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
John, I'm still not getting a response as to your POV on Joseph Smith. And actually the possibility that one contributor in tandem with only one or two like-minded individuals could direct the development of an article is not at all absurd. One of the two main criticisms with Wikipedia is its reliability based on the impact of Group Dynamics on its articles. As well Wikipedia states that "...neutral point of view (NPOV) [i]s one of its non-negotiable principles. However it acknowledges that such concept has limitations - its policy indeed states that articles should be "as far as possible" written without bias." See as a commenter (not a contributor as I have not contributed anything to the text of the article) who is LDS I feel to excuse myself from contributing based on my religious respect for Joseph Smith. I get that and see it as proper. At the same time, that does not mean I am going to sit on the sidelines and watch indivivuals who may have a negative POV towards Joseph Smith dictate his history unfairly. So please, in the name of fairness to Wikipedia, its contributors, and its trusting readers, what is your personal POV on Joseph Smith? I've been using 4 square brackets thinking they were tildes, hope it works this time 199.60.41.15 ( talk) 23:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)Canadiandy
Thanks for your quick response John. I figured I was grown up when I learned 'ampersand,' thanks for 'tilde.' I think it's the first time I've used that thing. I was more interested in your POV towards Joseph Smith not Mormonism. There are many out there who figure he was a true Prophet of God. Some who are fascinated or at least interested by his historical accomplishments and character. And then there are those who believe him a liar, a heretic, and a con-man. Of course there are all variations in between those. But my concern is that you may be coming at this with a previously negative or unfairly biased POV towards Joseph Smith. I do not take fault with you for that even if you think the greatest evil of Joseph Smith. I just think it important that we know your work here is based on neutrality and not merely an effort towards neutrality. I think of it as jury duty. A fair jury process will require removal of any who come in with bias or conflict of interest and then the expectation that those remaining will strive to operate without bias throughout the proceedings of a case.
Also, I am not a member of FAIR. Except for this article I don't dabble in big religious discussions (more interested in studying and practicing my religion that deconstructing it). But I suspect they are singling you out (fairly or unfairly) because you seem to be the senior contributor at the time and at present the article remains heavily slanted. No, I don't think you made it that way (I have reviewed the history and it looks more like you inherited the problem) I just think they might see you as responsible or at least doing nothing about it. So the fault is more likely one of omission and not comission. I don't envy the work it would take, but it seems you are faced with either radically revising the scope, sequence and tenor of the article to be a little more sensitive to family and followers of Joseph Smith, or stepping aside so some new 'jury members' can have a less polarized go at it. I wish you courage and inspiration in the choices ahead.
Seriously, I did not take on contributing to these discussions out of anger or some kind of axe to grind. I was just so shocked initially by the imbalance of what I read when I visited this page that I felt I had to offer input. PBS was balanced, Britannica was balanced, but from my POV, anyone who thinks this is balanced has gone to a few too many "Secrets of Moronism Revealed" seminars at their local church.
199.60.41.15 ( talk) 01:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)Canadiandy
Me again (Canadiandy). Thanks for referencing FAIR's criticism of your contributions. I hadn't read them before and they were quite informative about what may be happening here. One thing I actually am enlightened by is what I have identified as negative and unfair treatment of Joseph Smith here. I know that sounds weird but let me explain how it works. See, Brigham Young once said, "Every time you kick "Mormonism" you kick it upstairs; you never kick it downstairs." I saw a perfect example of this during my own missionary service. In the area I was assigned some other religion delivered a book to every doorstep in the community called, "God's Word, Final, Infallible, and Forever" which was in reality a disguised anti-Mormon tract, despite the misleading title the majority of the book merely set forth to discredit Joseph Smith and Mormonism. Well in the end we had more people investigate and join the Church in that area than ever before. See, when people would read through those criticisms they wouldn't coincide with their experience with Mormons and the Church. So they looked further, and that investigation led them to find out the truth about Joseph from respectful and more reliable sources. So yeah, in some ways I hope this stays slanted. I just hope the links at the very bottom (the truth in fine print) stay active while it is because people are going to be looking.
99.199.147.225 (
talk)
04:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)Canadiandy
Actually, no COgden. My shock had nothing to do with seeing some of the criticisms of Joseph Smith that exist in the academic world (and I resent the suggestion that I have received a shielded perspective based on my Church upbringing, if this is your attitude I would question your Church experience. On Joseph Smith I've pretty much heard it all. Infact, this article is exactly what I would expect to see from a typical anti-Mormon website which was trying to appear open-minded (heavy focus on shock value issues such as polygamy, political involvement, military early on, followed by some respectful links placed conveniently way at the bottom). My shock is that this article has evolved into a very unfairly organized piece. By presenting a barrage of controversial and inflammatory themes in the opening two paragraphs any uninformed reader would quickly dismiss Joseph Smith and move on. That, I feel, is unfair and poor journalism. Remember Bushman was not writing for the masses, he was writing for those already familiar with Joseph Smith. Thus Britannica can write an article with the same sources and come across as ten times more sensitive than this article. And yes, with respect, I think it's time we 'dismissed the jury.' This one seems hung. Here is my theory as to how we got here. Generally speaking there are two types of people who research Joseph Smith (as evidenced in Brodie/Bushman). There are those who hate him, and those who love him. Now on Wikipedia, those who love him are quickly dismissed or are respectfully cautious in posting based on their POV. But those with a negative POV towards Joseph Smith are pretty much all that is left, and they then have free rein to guide the Wikipedia agenda. Again, this is a classic example of the flaw Wikipedia has w/ Group Dynamics. My solution would be to throw it all out, and scour the forest for a few truly neutral contributors (not just people trying to be neutral) and let them try it again. I suspect what they would come up with would look an awful lot more like Brittanica, and an awful lot less like "God's Word, Final, Infallible, and Forever.". 99.199.147.225 ( talk) 19:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)Canadiandy
John Foxe are you accepting compensation from your evangelical organization for your mormon wikipedia adventures? Or perhaps there is there more than one human behind that wikipedia username of yours? Those are my best guesses as to why and how you are so active on this and other mormon wikipedia articles. Please explain in detail your POV and why you care so much. Others have freely admitted their POV. When pressed recently you said you were trying to be "accurate"; accurate to what? and why are you trying? Please help us understand the person (people?) behind the wikipedia username John Foxe? Proudneutralmormon ( talk) 14:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
John, I'm still waiting for your POV on Joseph Smith. 99.199.147.225 ( talk) 19:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)Canadiandy
John, it is likely you are not now, nor have ever been a member of the Communist Party either. Your religion, I feel, has nothing to do with this. But still the question remains, not whether you are a Mormon or not, but what was your POV (i.e. respect, disrespect, hatred, skepticism, reverence, mere scholastic interest, naivety, desire to discredit, fascination) regarding Smith when you began your contributions? I am assuming good faith, but I am also not getting direct answers to simple questions. 99.199.147.225 ( talk) 06:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)Canadiandy
COgden. You are comfortable identifying your Church membership and so I hope you take no offense at this. But as you have broached the subject I feel it only acceptable to ask you whether you consider yourself what might be termed an 'orthodox' Mormon? While you claim membership your viewpoints here do not seem to reflect common Church member attitudes or sensitivities. Of course most members recognize the challenges Joseph faced in Kirtland and Nauvoo. But from my experience the majority of Mormons would view the key elements in Joseph's life and development as his strong Christian upbringing, the love of his family, his spiritual sensitivities, the Vision he had of God and Jesus Christ, his incredibly close bond with his brother, Hyrum, his courage, the tutelage he received from heavenly messengers including Moroni and John the Baptist, his innate integrity, his compassion, and his strong work ethic. How could you have missed those? Like Sarah Palin, it looks like you've, "Gone Rogue." Please don't get me wrong, I am not questioning your devotion or religious conviction, or even you understanding of Church History. But for others reading on this discussion page I feel it important to point out that your statements here clearly do not reflect a common consensus of Church members. So feel free to identify yourself as a Mormon, just make sure to point out your opinions are not those of the majority of Church members. 99.199.147.225 ( talk) 01:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)Canadiandy
John, it was not me that suggested you were a Baptist, please correct. In fact I had assumed you were more likely an Evangelical Christian. But would you please correct your claim that FAIR is an "arm" of the LDS Church. It is simply not true. 99.199.147.225 ( talk) 01:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)Canadiandy
The question in my mind now is "...so what?" Canadiandy, and whoever else, if you have specific changes, based on the FAIR analysis of this article, that you want to suggest, by all means please do so. I highly recommend making a new section on the talk page for each individual point you wish to change, because discussions (like this one) often turn into long, meaningless blobs of text. ...but what do you think? ~ B F izz ( talk) 02:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Just starting some discussion about the proposed new section of the article. I like the idea and look forward to seeing it fleshed out a bit more. ...but what do you think? ~ B F izz ( talk) 02:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Nah. Unless it will be used as a way to pull all the inflammatory concepts out and place them together in one at least three paragraphs down (I don't disagree with stating these opinions and views, just that their juxtaposition at the very beginning is poor form from a site which prides itself on neutrality). 99.199.147.225 ( talk) 05:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)Canadiandy
Last post. Sorry if I got a bit snippy here. Still quite disappointed at the slant, but that may just be the nature of the beast. Peace. 99.199.147.225 ( talk) 05:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)Canadiandy
While not an end-all neutral source, the LDS manual Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith may prove useful for this section. ...but what do you think? ~ B F izz ( talk) 20:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello, according to my understanding of Wikipedia guidelines, referenced material should not be deleted. Earlier today I added updated statistics showing the number of followers of Joseph Smith has risen above 13 million. The 13 million is based on 2008 stats. One editor, use John Foxe decided to delete the reference and the additions claiming they don't belong here. Following the guidelines of collaboration and consensus, I am starting this new discussion section to find out if the various individuals interested want to weigh in on this question.
Considering the edits were referenced with newer stats than were already there, correct me if I am wrong, they should stand unless we have a very strong consensus to stick with the old. So I have undone Mr. Foxe's premature undoing of my addition until we have a consensus. After we have a consensus, if the community agrees with Mr. Foxe, then I suppose I will take the numbers down.
The reason the numbers matter is because the LDS church is Joseph's legacy. If J.S. had only 20,000 modern-day followers, then he would have a much different place in history. 98.108.141.145 ( talk) 20:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Man, I appreciate your calling yourself a Mormon, but your views here sure aren't reflective of the majority of Mormons I know. A member with serious experience or understandings of Church policy relative to membership will know the following; 1. Membership is only recorded for a living individual who has, of their own free will, been baptized and then confirmed a member. The only exception to this is for children of baptized parents until the age of accountability (9). So it is mighty hard for a person to accidentally become a Mormon. Now whether they are active in Church attendance is another issue, but here the Church does not make the decision for the individual (that is a matter of free agency). 2. While records of children whose parents are members are kept they are not considered members after the age of 9 unless baptized and confirmed. 3. There are many in the world who have never been baptized (for legal, physical, or family reasons) yet might still consider themselves "members" or followers of the Church. So the argument of estimating downward is highly questionable. 4. Anyone who does not wish to remain a member of the Church needs only to follow a few simple steps to have their membership removed (a process consistent with many organizations and in compliance with all State laws). So, of those 13 000 000, you would be hard pressed to find a handful of 'accidental members.' How frequently they attend is merely speculative and questionable.
Perhaps it should be written, While Mormon leaders claim 13 000 000 members it is estimated by someone pulling numbers ranging from 1 to 12 999 999 out of a hat that 3 784 433 of them failed to attend Church last Sunday and so are excluded from consideration by Wikipedia contributors. In addition, 498 743 estimated children are merely attending because their Mommies made them so they are likewise removed from educated membership estimates. As to the estimated number who did not attend because of flat tires we can only speculate. But after Wikipedia review the number now stands at 17, and one of them is a declared Communist. man, sorry COgden, but you're really off the mark this time. 99.199.147.225 ( talk) 07:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)Canadiandy
Actually I still see a very good reason why the 13 million worldwide figure should be used. Naturally, one of the first questions a person will have when learning about a religious figure is how many followers? Before my edit today this article said a vague "millions" could be interpreted by a reader as anywhere from 2 million to 999 million. A reader would have had to search elsewhere to find out that simple 13,000,000 answer that occupies only 10 characters of text. We do have the sources mentioned in the 2nd note. A careful read of the notes shows that the 2003 figures put out by the church were considered accurate and verified by neutral third parties. If we wanted to accept COGDENS allegation that the 2008 rolls are inflated - well, COGDEN or somebody should provide a reputable neutral source for 2008, of similar quality to the 2003 source saying so.
Bottom line, having the figure of 13 million backed by a good reference, as opposed to a vague magnitude estimate of "millions" is factual encyclopedia style.
And, finally, please do not delete the material, which is sourced, until there is a strong consensus in this section first. I think the figures should stand on the site and allow more people to post their opinion on the matter in this section. Right now I read it as me, for keeping the 13 million, and 2 users COGEN and B Fizz opposed. I don't think that's enough consensus to delete the factual, sourced material. 98.108.141.145 ( talk) 01:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
(New indent) So every other article on Wikipedia on a church gets to quote their membership numbers, but this one? For some reason, this one needs to have their numbers reported by a "neutral", "scholarly study". This makes me roll on the floor laughing. COgden used the SLTimes article, which only used membership numbers as reported by other religious groups...duh. If groups can't be trusted none of them can. On the other hand, if we trust them for one, we trust them for all.
None of the reasons offered here are any different than that seen on the Catholic Church article for their membership rolls. The LDS Church, having such a top-down leadership style has the best chance of reporting accurate numbers (I discount and throw-out the fraud charges completely). Few of the other groups (Protestants) know the difference between the left and right hand; there is no mechanism to limit an individual to a single Church. The quote is referenced; that is all that is needed. Quit choking on gnats. -- Storm Rider 20:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
BFizz, I think you have a really neat idea to break out this debate into topics. I see a lot of room to expand your way of using the topics so I moved the topics up above the summary. Hopefully that's OK. I am back now working on the section summary the way I visualized it. I have this idea of each user occupying a single line in the summary, and then as we come to a consensus we can each edit our own line. So it will show a consensus or not right there, in the same number of lines as there are users. If everyone hates it I'll drop it, I just thought it would be fun. 98.108.141.145 ( talk) 05:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Newspapers pick and choose statistics, often summarizing data and relevant material which would require lengthy discussion. USA Today's format lends itself to this difficulty as they like pithy, easily presented material. I reverted the source because of this tendency, although I suspect the 13 mil is fairly accurate. I would encourage finding the neutral source cited above, verifying that the information quoted was actually as published, and trying to understand how the information was gathered. If the information is based on self reporting by churches, this method is often attacked when used by the Utah based LDS church. I will not revert the source again, however. WBardwin ( talk) 09:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Assuming the article's most current references are used for the statement, edit this sentence until a consensus emerges, noting and signing your changes in the list below.
"His legacy includes several religious denominations, the largest of which, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, claims a membership of more than 13 million and continues to grow worldwide."
"His legacy includes several religious denominations, including [[ The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]] and the Community of Christ, which collectively claim a growing membership of nearly 14 million worldwide."
I deleted my effort at a section summary because I don't think anybody wrote in it besides me, and I think B Fizz's technique is much better. If anyone wants my old summary back, well, there's a thing called the undo button. Proudneutralmormon ( talk) 05:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Looking at Routerone's edits in more detail, and throwing my opinion into the mix:
After Foxe expanded "history" to "a migration of Jews to North America and their subsequent history", Routerone undid the edit, stating "that is not specific or completely accurate wording". I agree with Routerone on that.
Routerone explains that he "remove[d] 'impressive', point of view statement." I don't have any feelings either way.
Before the change (and after the change's reversion) it read:
"... Smith became the mayor of Nauvoo and commander of a large militia. In 1844, after a local newspaper exposed the practice of polygamy within the church and accused Smith of acting the tyrant, Smith and the Nauvoo city council suppressed the paper as a nuisance and then attempted to meet the ensuing outrage by declaring martial law. Accused of treason, he was jailed by Illinois state authorities and was assassinated by a mob."
After the change ( diff) it read:
"... After a local newspaper accused the church of practicing polygamy, Smith supressed the paper, which lead to his arrest and imprisonment at Carthage Jail by the Illinois state authority and subsequent assassination by a mob."
I agree that the older wording is, well, wordy...just a little more than summary detail level. I do have a few issues with Routerone's proposed version. According to me:
I agree with this edit; the Latter Day Saint movement is already mentioned.
Comments? ...but what do you think? ~ B F izz 23:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
The following paragraph was removed by another editor. It appears citations would be required before the material could be placed in the article. Discussion. WBardwin ( talk) 03:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)