![]() | 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 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 20 |
Okay, so this edit was added, then removed, then edit warred by a few editors. It's probably a good time to invoke WP:BRD: in other words, it's been boldly added, boldly removed, but has not been boldly discussed.
Please discuss it here- I'll probably full-protect the article to prevent further edit warring if necessary. Note I'm not making a judgment for or against the content- just that it's been disputed, and if we are following BRD, it should stay off the page until there is consensus. tedder ( talk) 18:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Bushman notes that area residents connected the discovery of the Book of Mormon with Smith's past career as a money digger. "From that perspective, money-digging and the Book of Mormon were both fraudulent schemes." Bushman (2005, p. 117)
Tedder, any objection to making this change and then unprotecting? I could do it if you prefer. After a cooling-off period, I think the involved editors have moved beyond it, and it has morphed into something else now. Maybe something like the above edit would remain stable. COGDEN 02:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Goodness people. If there is this much debate about Joseph Smith, Jr., I would recommend making a new page for "Critique of Joseph Smith, Jr." or something of the like. Editing wars do not help people who are trying to get information from Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.248.140.146 ( talk) 22:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Apparently stating that Smith was the "first prophet" of the latter day saint movement is LDS POV and therefore isn't warranted in the article. To an extent I can see where that point stems from considering those outside the movement don't consider him to be a prophet; but as those inside of the movement see him as a prophet shouldn't it be mentioned as such just to signify that?
Afterall; the articles on other claimed prophets are treat very, very differently. For example look at this in the lead paragraph of the article Muhammad:
"the greatest law-bearer in a series of Islamic prophets and by most Muslims the last prophet as taught by the Qur'an"
"He lived approximately 2700 years ago and was a prophet in the 8th-century BC Kingdom of Judah"
"was a prophet in Israel in the 9th century BC"
Those are just three out of numerous examples, so why is it that Joseph Smith is treated differently from them? Afterall the "prophethood" of non of those individuals has even been proven as authenic just as people would say about Smith's, and likeywise they are not beyond criticism. They are religious figures and hence the same rules apply, so why is it if the word "prophet" is used in this page people come crying out saying "POV! POV!".
Because if it is "POV" then those articles above are also POV Pushing then. So really considering Smith is regarded as the first of a line of prophets by those in the LDS movement, it should be stated as "first prophet", this is not POV as the usage of the words "of the latter day saint movement" changes the context so it shows that only in their POV they regard him as such, it is not asking others to agree. They regard him as a prophet like it or not, and other professional encyclopedia pages call him "the latter day saint prophet". So halt the prejudice against the LDS please. Routerone ( talk) 08:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Of people trying to tell me what I can and cannot do to this article, outside of the LDS field here on wikipedia I am free to add and edit anything (which is legitimate obviously) to any single page on wikipedia and its rare that people will kick up a fuss about it. Yet here it is "revert, revert, revert" and ultimately I find it obnoxious that there are people presiding over this article thinking they are arbitrators of what can be altered/added to the page.
I try to add in genuine first hand accounts from Martin Harris and I'm reverted for being "apologetic" and "point of view pushing" and even for quoting a book which is skeptical of Mormonism, how does that work out? This article and many other LDS ones are floated on first hand accounts from Smith's associates, but yet their accounts only seem to be "allowed" if they suggest something against him and anything positive is rounded off for being "bias" which again I think is unjust and pathetic. John Foxe, you don't like it if I remove your cited content without an explained reason, yet you just went and done the same thing to me, how is that justified? There was nothing wrong with the content I put in that page, it basically explained the following things:
But now, if Harris said something which was slightly against Smith, I am sure it would be quoted in there, exaggerated and defended no doubt. My points were cited, and are without a doubt useful to the article, this "revert" culture needs to stop, if people want to change this page then they should have the right to do so, rather than one editor building an incredibly negative bias version of the page and then reverting anyone who tries to change it. Is that justice? Is that what this website is all about? Routerone ( talk) 15:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Baseballbugs, the article states that he is a "prophet of the Latter Day Saint movement". It's not an "unqualified label", it's a historical fact. If the article asserted he were a "true prophet" or "sent from God" prophet, then that would be POV. See Routerone's argument in previous discussion for comparison with other examples such as Elijah. As for Duke, Foxe, and Routerone, I dare you to stop using the shiny revert button. Instead, try to actually integrate the new and old material into a form that is acceptable by everyone. Reword. Reorganize. Use your brain. I'll try and help when I have more time. And most certainly work with sub-articles as COgden has suggested. ...but what do you think? ~ B F izz 17:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Bugs, your comment just goes to reinforce the problems that occur when our critics try to define our history and beliefs. The title 'Prophet' is not merely an opinioned title, it is the official term used to describe an office within the Melchizidek Priesthood. It is no more biased to call Joseph a prophet than to call John Paul a pope. For Muhammed (strawman rhetoric) the title is not reflective of office. If the anti-Mormons didn't rule the roost here these types of errors would have been gone long ago. Hold your ground, Routerone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiandy1 ( talk • contribs) 13:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't see how any local consensus to describe him as "prophet" can be respected. Believing Smith to be a prophet is pretty much the belief that distinguishes the LDS from the rest of the world. There's no reason to belittle that belief, but it is far from universally held.— Kww( talk) 18:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I've been gone all day. Baseball Bugs's post immediately above mine was the suggestion on WP:ANI; I really think it's better wording to (a) be consistent with other "religious leader" pages, and (b) I'd think that the more pro-LDS folks would especially be for that. On the other hand, using scare quotes, like some versions had, is a bad thing. tedder ( talk) 03:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if this helps or if I'm just stirring the pot but I've noticed, if the subject is real historical person, their placement in the various divinity is subject to qualifiers. i.e. Muhammad "is regarded by Muslims as a messenger and prophet of God", Gautama Buddha "In most Buddhist traditions, he is regarded as the Supreme Buddha", Sun Myung Moon "it is believed by many Unification Church members, that he is the Messiah and the Second Coming of Christ", Bahá'u'lláh "claimed to be the prophetic fulfillment of Bábism", and, of course, Jesus "central figure of Christianity, which views him as the Messiah foretold in the Old Testament" and "most Christian denominations believing him to be the Son of God"
But, if the person themselves is not historical then the wording can stand as statement. i.e. Elija "was a prophet in Israel in the 9th century BC." or Isaiah "was a prophet in the 8th-century BC Kingdom of Judah.", or Moses "was, according to the Hebrew Bible, a religious leader, lawgiver, and prophet" (and even that is qualified).
So it looks to me like we have a de facto standard of giving fictional characters the benefit of the doubt while holding historical persons to a higher standard. That's my 2 cents.
Padillah (
talk)
12:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Apparently saying that someone is a prophet means something different to me than it means to many of my fellow editors here at Wikipedia. I see no trouble in saying "Elijah was a prophet of Israel", "Moses was a prophet of the Old Testament", or "Muhammad was a prophet of Islam". To me, these are not assertions of the veracity of the subject's divine calling, but rather, statements of cultural status: who these people were with respect to some culture or time frame. Does anyone truly feel that writing "Joseph Smith was the founder and prophet of the Latter Day Saint movement" is an unbalanced statement? It clearly conveys who Joseph Smith was to the Latter Day Saint movement: not just its founder but its prophet. Does anyone truly feel that this statement implies that his true prophethood is an undisputed fact?
I find it bizarre that the argument is raised by several editors that the statement implies more than I think it does. I again refer to the Elijah example: Elijah ... whose name means "Yahweh is God," was a prophet in Israel in the 9th century BC. Is that an inappropriate POV? No. It is a statement of cultural regard, and I doubt that anyone really misunderstands that, whether or not they believe that Elijah communicated with the divine. ...but what do you think? ~ B F izz 04:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
May I briefly attack this from another angle? Encyclopaedia Britannica's summary of him is "Mormon prophet and founder of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." Reference.com, licensing from Columbia University Press, states that "As prophet and seer he founded (1830) his church in Fayette". Neither feel the need to say "adherents believe him to be a prophet" because its redundant and obvious. Cut out the obvious; say he's a prophet. The clear implication is that "he is believed to be a prophet by believers". ...but what do you think? ~ B F izz 05:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
One problem we have here is the plain meaning of the word and the use of it as a title. "So-and-so was a prophet" means two different things, depending on context. Going back to my earlier example, " David Duke was a wizard" is a clearly different statement from " David Duke held the title of Grand Wizard within the Ku Klux Klan". If the word "prophet" is meant as a title, the sentence structure has to make that distinction clear.— Kww( talk) 15:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Canadiandy1 ( talk) 01:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
Likewise, anyone not lds faithful is obviously biased so as to not promote the faith. For the record, I mostly share the same idea as COgden: "he was a prophet" is descriptive, not metaphysical. Let me reason in two different ways why I think this way.
Canadiandy1 (
talk)
05:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
I am really puzzled by the confusion that remains here. First, people need to know that the term prophet is used in two ways by the LDS. In essence, any individual who is given revelation which is pertinent to the future is acting prophetically. Thus, any individual (in or out of the Church) might prophecy and thereby be referred to as a small-'p' prophet. However, some individuals are formally ordained (by laying on of hands) as Prophets, Seers, and Revelators. Thus, Brother Jones may be a Bishop, a High Priest, an Apostle, and a Prophet at the same time (we actually have 15 prophets if you wish to pursue the issue). Unique to the LDS belief is the understanding that the authority of Priesthood offices are retained, based on worthiness, forever. So while Joseph Smith acted prophetically, he also held the titles of, Elder, Apostle, Prophet, President, and High Priest. It could also be said he was a Deacon, a Teacher, and a Priest. These are titles. In fact, broken down by office and (common usage)
Aaronic (preparatory) Priesthood Deacon (Brother Jones) Teacher (Brother Jones) Priest (Brother Jones) Bishop (Bishop Jones)
Melchizidek Priesthood Elder (Elder Jones) Seventy (Elder Jones) High Priest (Brother Jones) Patriarch (Formerly Patriarch Jones, new policy recommends Brother Jones) Apostle (senior Quorum member designated Prophet, or President Jones)
Consider this fact. Joseph Smith's father served for years as the Patriarch of the Church. While he was a patriarch (speaking of his role as a father) it would sound silly to state that Joseph Smith Sr. was the (small 'p') patriarch of the church.
Joseph Smith, while a 'p'rophet, was also a 'P'rophet by virtue of Priesthood office. Thus Pope John Paul, President Obama, Prophet Smith (though the term President Smith is more commonly used). So feel free to refuse to identify Joseph Smith as a 'p'rophet. But it is insensitive to both the RLDS and the LDS and erroneous to ignore the fact Joseph Smith was a 'P'rophet (an office in the High Priesthood). I don't follow the Pope, but I wouldn't deny he is one. You don't have to believe Smith was a prophet, to accept he was a Prophet in the LDS Priesthood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiandy1 ( talk • contribs) 05:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Several have proposed the removal of "and an important political figure in the United States" from the first sentence. I also agree with the removal. Was there anyone that objected to this removal? ...but what do you think? ~ B F izz 01:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
"Joseph Smith (December 23, 1805 – June 27, 1844) was the founder and [a] [Prophet/prophet] of the Latter Day Saint movement."
My personal preference is to leave out the 'a' and use the lowercase 'p'. But as far as I can tell, the following editors would accept one of the above variations of the first sentence:
As far as I can tell, the following editors express disapproval of all of the above variations of the sentence:
And as far as I can tell, the following editors have not made a clear statement either way, though they would probably err on the side of not using 'prophet':
As far as I understand, the following are the various options and reasons behind each one. My stating an argument here is not necessarily an agreement with said argument:
Have I accurately captured the essence of all perspectives in the discussion thusfar? I continue to support option #1, as my reasoning in the Implications section has not yet been addressed with a convincing counterargument. ...but what do you think? ~ B F izz 01:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
The qualification "considered to be" is itself a pointed disclaimer and not neutrality. Clearly readers will understand Wikipedia is not advocating that Smith's prophetic role is to be universally accepted dogma. Besides, it just makes it even more wordy and annoying. I mean, what some accept as Wikipedia should not, according to some, be what many scholars consider to be, an arguably small-'n' neutral agency who, as is reported, is viewed by anywhere from 300 to 3 trillion individuals in one week (by the Gregorian calendar). Canadiandy1 ( talk) 02:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
There have been issues raised concerning the use of "founder and first prophet of the Latter Day Saint movement" since most Latter Day Saints believe in and claim prophets (for example, Old Testament prophets) that predate Smith. I personally find this wording acceptable since Smith was the first prophet to claimed solely by the LDS movement. I don't have a strong opinion for or against using "first". As for Foxe's comment, like COgden said, the movement isn't an organization. Furthermore I'd say that Monson is referred to as "THE" prophet of the LDS Church because he's the current living President of that organization. I still feel that "THE prophet of the Latter Day Saint movement" can easily be identified as JSJr and adherents of the LDS Church, as well as adherents of other Latter Day Saint churches, would probably agree with the statement. Human language, with its many implications and unspoken assumptions, can be so troublesome. ...but what do you think? ~ B F izz 00:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Question: where do we stand on the lead sentence? Did we ever come to a conclusion? My question being "Was Joseph Smith Jr. the first President of the LDS church?" Seeing as how the dissensions and reformations happened after his death the Church should have been well established by then. This makes the sentence "...was founder and first President..." correct and IMO the best candidate for lead (using Monson's article as a basis). Padillah ( talk) 14:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
The article states that, "Smith was a materialist, teaching that all spirit was material but composed of matter so fine that it was invisible to all but the purest mortal eyes," which is like saying, Mulroney was an alcoholic, being a man who drank habitually to excess." It is redundant and could be simplified by simply stating, "Smith taught that all spirit was material but composed of matter so fine that it was invisible to all but the purest mortal eyes."
In fact, to some unfamiliar with the term they might assume 'Materialist[s]' were a religious group or some unfamiliar fringe collective body further confusing this statement.
99.199.139.154 ( talk) 01:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
Thanks for your fair support on this one, COgden. You'll have to post it though as I've been 'editorially neutered' by Tedder. In essence he compared me as equivalent in status to Duke53. For any interested I'm pasting his posting and my response. Sorry for any hard feelings.
Tedder wrote:
"This is actually a multifaceted problem. Certainly routerone's recent personal attack is a problem ([36]). Duke53 seems to only be around to cause trouble- but Canadiandy, who edits as IPs and a username, isn't much better- at least duke53 makes valid contributions to Wikipedia; Canadiandy only posts on a few talk pages and has made few or no actual contributions, meaning both of the users are in the WP:SPA camp as far as I can tell."
I replied:
"I don't know if I'm allowed to post here or if it's good form either. If I am in error I plead ignorance and not malice. First, I'm not sure about the problem with me editing as "IPs." I don't know if I'm the only one who finds this confusing. I am assuming you are referring to my need to create a user name and be logged in? I believe I have been doing that since learning of it with a much greater frequency of late, though I admit I had a time when I was doubly confused after being accused of double signing in (I believe the concern was I was both logged in and '4-tildeing').
To the accusation that I make few or no actual contributions, that is, I feel, completely unfair. In the beginning I was trying to 'learn the ropes' and let the senior members edit while I simply offered insight for improvement. I don't think there's more than 3% of my postings that do not make recommendations for improvement. That I am of the opinion that the article is slanted, and that my opinions are critical of that slant do not mean I have no recommendations for improvement. In fact, on the several suggestions I have made (rewording the term 'movement', capitalizing the word 'prophet' to reflect title, adding references to 'dynastic' nature of temple marriages, exploring validity of Brodie as a reliable source, and recently editing the term 'materialist' based on redundancy) most are usually met with a wall of text against what seem to be very fair proposals. Perhaps this is the context that has Routerone so frustrated.
And now I am accused of being worse than Duke53?
In my defense, I have picked up an awful lot of procedural knowledge in the short few months I've been here. I have apologized readily if I have been insensitive or out of line. I have been busy and offered original insight into systemic challenges and how they might be overcome in an effort to bring real fairness to the article. To the accusation I am an SPA, I am an incredibly new contributor. In that short time I have posted here extensively, but I have also branched into the "Mark Hoffman" article, "Beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints," and I even posted on the "Martin Luther" board against what I feel are unfair accusations of his Nazi influence. Tedder, you have the right to your opinion, but is this how new contributors are usually treated?
You will notice I actually spoke up in opposition to Routerone's statements concerning COgden, though I fully understand his frustration. I believe I have been fair and cautious. I have been focused on improving the article primarily, though I do admit posting occasional responses to offenses I have felt based on the criticisms hoisted against a man I revere as a great religious leader of my faith. Even this was done not in attack but on the assumption others might not understand the impact has on many orthodox 'Mormons.'
Your post here is, I feel, unwarranted, and unfair. But if this is going to continue to be my experience here I have better things to do. I understand hearing these kind of accusations on the discussion page. But when it comes from a senior member it is humiliating. Consider me gone. You win.
Sorry Routerone, looks like you're the last leaf on the tree and there's a stiff wind blowing.
Canadiandy1 ( talk) 03:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
COgden, thanks for the respect. Truth is, they don't pay me to do this job, and I owe no allegiance to Wikipedia. So as long as individuals like Tedder run roughshod on my contributions, I'll step aside and let the article go for a season.
Hold in there Brother Routerone, sorry I can't join you on the Trek. Watch for wolves.
199.60.41.15 ( talk) 20:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
I would like to propose an "amendment" to the content of this page in regards to a cited statement in the article which makes a direct claim that "the plates themselves were not directly consulted".
On doing research, I have discovered that this "statement" is a gross misinterpretation of the source which is supporting it, and that the statement is infact synthesis, a self drawn conclusion drawn from information the source gives, and hence the statement is not in allignment with what the source is actually saying.
This is the source:
This is the footnote (please note it is not drawn directly from the source content):
Now this is the text from the sources themselves:
My issue is with this, is that looking at the information the source gives, it cannot be deduced that the plates were in the woods during these times" yet the person who placed this in the article (COGDen) seems to have drew an unverfied conclusion from this source adding his own judgement into it, that is synthesis. The source says "After that, the Plates were said to be hid in the woods". It does not say anything at all on the "plates were not always directly consulted during translation" but rather it seems to make a reference to one event where Smith wrote down characters for Harris, known as the Anthon Transcript and that's it. But ultimately COGDen has interpreted "After this, I became dissatisfied, and informed him that if there was any thing in my house of that description, which I could not be allowed to see, he must take it away; if he did not, I was determined to see it" to meaning that the plates were never in the building. However, outside of that one account no evidence suggests that, and no evidence at all other than adding a self made conclusion to that source says "the plates were not directly consulted"
So as the statement in the article is merely a conclusion drawn from an indirect statement in the source, I am requesting its removal on the basis that it is merely synthesis being presented as fact, which is unfair. This is not a place for speculation. Routerone ( talk) 17:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I just reverted COgden's edit; consensus needs to be achieved once consensus has been raised. COgden, I looked at Bushman "Rough Stone...", page 71 and I am a bit confused. In the second to the last paragraph it clearly states the plates were on the table, the Urim and Thummim was used, and a blanket was used with Martin Harris. This conflicts badly with the generalization made in your recent edit. I strongly recommend that generalizations not be used, no blanket comments, and allowances should be made for conflicting reliables resources. -- Storm Rider 22:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
New Mormon History?
Translation: intellectuals defining other people's religion's history for them cause they're too dumb to do it themselves.
Sounds condescending, arrogant, and mean-spirited all at the same time.
Reminds me of the Europeans who came to America and worked really hard to "civilize" the native 'barbarians.' But if I'm not eager to embrace NMH I guess I must be one of those "angry Mormons who have little interest in mainstream scholarship."
99.199.139.154 ( talk) 06:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
Bugs, a polite request. The term 'Indian' may be appropriate in the US, but here in Canada it is not culturally sensitive. We use the term First Nations. And we do have a problem here with the European chronicles of our First Nations. Objective or not, our First Nations get pretty steamed when academics try to pigeon hole them and tell them their own history. It makes me think of the visiting sociology students and how silly they look trying to join in a Potlatch (ceremonial) dance. Both analogies stand.
Thanks,
99.199.139.154 ( talk) 22:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
I don't think I was acting sarcastically as much as I was responding with offense at this arrogant "New" Mormon History. It's as out of touch as a lecture by George W. Bush on the modern African American youth dialects. As if I'm supposed to cheer for a bunch of University skeptics who will define my religious or cultural history?
What you keep failing to realize is that there is an incredibly insensitive approach to defining LDS history here. From my academic experience this outsider approach to history is Old School. Consider First Nations studies. Historians who study their culture and beliefs from the outside are quickly discredited and actually restricted from access to songs and legends. The new approach is to work from inside the cultural group to provide sensitivity, context, and accuracy to social research. This is far more effective in the long run. If it had been used in the first place we wouldn't have needed to spend 5 pages of debate figuring out that 'Prophet' should be capitalized. And the edit wars here would be far less polarized.
How does this contribute to the article? It gets at the very root of why it is so biased, polarized, offensive, and unreliable. Now I'm not so naive as to expect the current editors to get that, but that shouldn't keep me from a hope that somehow the lightbulb will click with maybe even one and begin to turn this thing around. It's like a train heading the wrong way. Just speeding up won't help.
Please ask yourself if the presentation of your own religions, cultures, or histories wouldn't benefit from a more socially respectful historical approach?
New Mormon History, maybe that's the real enemy here.
99.199.139.154 ( talk) 02:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
Hmm, Oakes is quite the scholar. So are Marlin K. Jensen, Turley, Holland, Jessee, Welch, Backman, Walker, Turner... . None of their research has been challenged (except by those who feel any Mormons not finding major fault with Joseph Smith must be biased Mormons) and I don't see many references from them. What we have here now, unless we can rethink our approach, is a natural selection committee. It seems the world is scoured for Mormon scholars whose research (in or out of context) is most inflammatory or skeptical. It is not THAT Mormons are referenced, it's WHICH Mormons seem to be embraced. Brodie (a bitter ex-Mormon), Bachman (who is extremely unhappy with how his research has been manipulated to defame Joseph Smith), we've had this discussion before, so please don't stand them up as "mainstream" Mormons. I don't question their loyalty and faith in the Church, but they sure don't reflect the common tenor of research I have seen from BYU, CHD, or even FAIR LDS.
And please, the term Red Herring is of Canadian origin. I know what it means. It implies I am trying to avoid the issue (what issue, this is it's own issue) or divert from it. Saying such is not only contrary to good will, but it is also erroneous. I understand your likeliness to take offense at my opposition to New Mormon History. I just don't think we're going to agree that there's anything gained from championing criticism (regardless of the intent) of any religion, culture, or faith. So, call it what you will, New Mormon History is Old School.
99.199.139.154 ( talk) 16:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
I'll close the discussion with the reflections of Armund Mauss. He identified New Mormon History as historical scholarship that, "became more detached and academic." You call it 'New.' It started 50 years ago. You call it Mormon, the 'Mormon' Church is not its author. You call it History, well, there we will have to disagree, I call it more often a manipulation of evidences. So in short, New Mormon History is neither new, nor Mormon, nor history. If you're looking for a new term I propose 'Scholarly Cynical Urbanite Muckraking.' Sorry about the acronym.
Unless someone wants to hit me with another 'Red Herring,' I'm done on this one. 99.199.139.154 ( talk) 21:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
What do I think? I think that being Mormon (or any other religion for that matter) should be completely beside the point. Either a fact is appropriate for inclusion or it is not - period. Just because a fact could be interpreted as supporting or attacking a certain point of view does not make the fact any more or less based in reality. I don't care what other editors are trying to do, let's make the article better. I'd rather be right than win an argument. Padillah ( talk) 12:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I've posted to WP:CCN#Conflict at article Joseph Smith, Jr., specifically mentioning Routerone and Duke53. Please be aware of the noticeboard post. ...comments? ~ B F izz 01:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Hey all, (don't worry I'm just back to give you an update on events relating to this section). In the end (and outside the scope of the posted conflict) Tedder turned the blame on me for the excessive debate. In his words, "I've long considered you [Canadiandy] a troll." Makes me wonder why he didn't mention it earlier, but I know when I'm beat. Sorry for trolling, not sure what that really means now, but, whatever. I have a clean conscience that I did what I could to stand up for fairness, and now my family gets more of my time. I win, you win, and the article is what it is.
Sorry for any hard feelings Duke, John, and COgden. Especially, John. We don't agree, but I got a little defensive back there. Stay strong Routerone and BFizz.
Gonna go find me an old bridge to hang out under.
And please, I'd like to drop this so no parting shots.
Canadiandy1 ( talk) 06:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
Can anyone explain why Joseph Smith's 'First Vision' is conspicuously absent in the opening paragraphs? Yeah, I know people will pull out his so-called changing story. But as the Joseph Smith History (Smith's final account, written by his own hand) clearly states,
If we are attempting a summation it should at least attempt chronology. And if it is a matter of which version is more reliable, academically the more recent would be favored. First came the First Vision, then the receipt of the plates, ... . In fact, this event is arguably the most important event in Smith's life.
99.199.139.154 ( talk) 00:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
I realize that there are talk page archives but I think this needs to be revisited. Could someone summarize the arguments for "founding a movement" vs. "founding a movement"? I have a specific problem with crediting Smith with founding the movement when he founded(and incorporated) a specific church. After his death several disagreements about who should be the next president caused different branches to spring up but that is not the result of any effort on Smiths part (that I am aware of). Padillah ( talk) 14:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Sniper: mention about founding a church is in the lede: last sentence of first paragraph. The discussion, then, is whether it is POV to say that JSJr "founded a movement". As I've stated before, I have no strong opinions. While he didn't intend to found a "movement", the " Latter Day Saint movement" is a term which encompasses all denominations that originated with Smith, so its safe to say he founded it. ...comments? ~ B F izz 23:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree with StormRider, it's imprecise. Joseph Smith initiated a religion. It seems quite clear to me, from the stories and discussion regarding his first prayer, that he was searching for a singular means of worshiping Heavenly Father. His whole point, in the beginning , was to cut through the layers of different churches that had already been established and find the "one true church". That I know of, he was not prying for the One True Movement. Joseph Smith Jr. founded the one true church. He did not set out to establish several splinter religions that follow some of the same precepts. I guess I'm thinking more about his active role, he had an active role in establishing the Church of Christ. He did not have an active role in splintering that church into several separate entities. Padillah ( talk) 12:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
John Foxe, I'm getting an "us vs. them" feel from the phrasing of your comment. "If all you Mormons and former Mormons..."? I'm not trying to pick a fight. In fact I kind of like the idea of "...founder of the Latter-Day Saint religion". The part I'm trying to get around is, from everything I know about the religion, Smith didn't want 7 to 12 splinter groups, he meant to establish a single religion. What happened to that religion after his death was secondary. Again, the example of the BAA, what it turned into is not the point, Walter Brown established the BAA, not the NBA. I give StormRiders idea a nod but I've got the same issue John Foxe has, "first prophet" gets messy when you start taking Abraham and Moses into account. What about Foxe's "Latter-Day Saint religion"? Padillah ( talk) 20:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I've read over this section (and plan to do so several more times this week). It seems to satisfy all good article critera as is, as I will detail now, though I see some potential (small) improvements. NOTE: this is not a formal Good article review. It is an informal consideration of the criteria, so that the article will be ready for a real review by June 2010.
If you have any comments (agree? disagree?) relating to this summary of the EY section's conformity to Good article criteria, then feel free to discuss it here. Comments regarding specific suggestions should go in a separate, corresponding talk page section. ...comments? ~ B F izz 20:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Feel free to propose tweaks to the section's prose here, alongside my suggestions. Listing a sentence here for tweaking does not mean that it absolutely must be changed, but rather, that it is something that we should consider improving, if possible. ...comments? ~ B F izz 20:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Since Foxe is apparently tired of the endless debate relating to minor lede tweaks, may I again open up discussion to the topic of trimming the article? I don't know what to cut out, but I know it can be done. The sections of Smith's life can be brought into more compact summary style, since they have main articles. Now that the "teachings" subsections are fleshed out, we might want to consider condensing them as well. I propose that by June 2010 we have this article ready for a Good Article nomination. ...comments? ~ B F izz 19:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Maybe there's one low hanging fruit. I know I probably introduced the section, but on seeing its implementation, I don't really see much value to the "monuments and memorials" section. If someone wants to start a "list" article, we could link to it from the "see also" section, or just link the two notable memorials directly, but I don't think there's enough interesting material for an entire section. COGDEN 23:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
There are 6 subsections on Smith's life, and 6 subsections on his teachings. There are also about 6 weeks until June. I, for one, will (informally) review 2 sections per week (and review the others when I have extra time) according to the Good article criteria, and will especially look for ways to condense the prose. Some sections, I admit, will be un-condensable, and may in fact need to be expanded. But I'm going to try and get this article ready for a good article nomination by June, and I invite you all to do the same. ...comments? ~ B F izz 05:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Everything I've ever read (including the Wikipedia article on the plates) says Smith was told where they were but refused access to them for a time. I've never read a first vision story that had the angel bestow the plates on Smith. Shouldn't the correct phrase be he was directed to the plates? Padillah ( talk) 17:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Feel free to add to this section regarding ref cleanup. So far I've only identified one item for cleanup. This reference is used once in the EY section, and once in the following. It is a reference to History of the Church, and appears to be redundant with the later publications of "History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" listed under the name Roberts, B. H. The latter publications appear to be unused by our inline references. This redundancy should be resolved somehow. Ideas? ...comments? ~ B F izz 20:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to challenge Dennis Michael Quinn on charges of being a biased source and not valid for information. If that's not possible, could we state that "It is believed by some that Joseph Smith Jr. practiced folk magic" because it's a matter of opinion as to whether or not he practiced magic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snackwars ( talk • contribs) 03:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you Foxe. Now the quote establishes the following points:
Now my issue? It seems to mention Smith himself had the connection to folk magic but this seems to be narrative than stating more direct fact. Plus it does not say he practiced it with his family, or perhaps even undertook it at all. A self made conclusion presuming "the Smith family did" because "the region did" seems to be at the bottom of this and seems quite tedious. So, could it possible you provide some more text for you to back up this point? As the text in the article does seem to be synthesised from what the text actually says. I'd like as a result, the article to mention more of folk magic being a regional tenure at the time in the "burned over district". But if you can't back it up I recommend we get rid of the "Smith with his family practiced folk magic" statement. Routerone ( talk) 21:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
The Smiths were as susceptible as their neighbors to treasure-seeking folklore. In addition to rod and stone divining, the Smith probably believed in the rudimentary astrology found in the ubiquitous almanacs. Magical parchments handed down in the Hyrum Smith family may have originally belonged to Joseph Sr. (50)...Joseph Jr. never repudiated the stones or denied their power to find treasure. Remnants of the magical culture stayed with him to the end.(51)
By the way, sorry for not "signing" my statement, I new at this sort of thing. The issue I have with stating that Joseph Smith Jr. did practice magic is that it seems to contradict Wikipedia's claim of neutrality because the claim is one from a critical standpoint. As far as I'm concerned, anyone could've written an article or a book and then be used as a source--therefore whatever source is used, there ought to be a fair description of Joseph Smith Jr. in order to be "unbiased". Of course, I don't know how you talk about "folk magic" without taking one side or the other. If it is true that Joseph Smith Jr. did use items such as seer stones--it is quite difficult to call it magic if there are some who claim it is a form of priesthood. Doesn't this reveal a little prejudice? For some, this is the power given from God Thus, I find it difficult to claim that the use of seer stones or other such items constitutes "folk magic". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snackwars ( talk • contribs) 03:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I understand what you're saying and you may have a good point but I still disagree with the "apologetic view", in my mind it's simply a falsehood that has been circulated so much that it's considered a "fact". As far as I understand, we don't have any reliable primary sources to support this view--only some scholars who claim that Joseph Smith Jr. was a magician. However, we do have primary sources--such the Joseph Smith--History that state that rumors were spreading about him and there's nothing mentioned about him "locating treasures" for financial gain or practicing "folk magic." Why are these sources not considered? It states the facts from an LDS view, but because a popular idea prevails among scholars, we just silence the LDS view. There are sources--not just claims--that I have. In my mind, we should have the facts but not just rumors that have circulated into so-called "fact" that can't be backed up by a reliable primary source. I'm saying that the sources are biased and that they deserve to be challenged. I would say that an LDS source is much more legitimate in speaking about the LDS Church as opposed to an "outsider".
Snackwars (
talk) 14:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Snackwars (
talk •
contribs)
14:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
In reading over this entire discussion, I am amazed at the lack of credulity that is shown. The Bushman quote was cited thusly:Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page). "The Smiths were as susceptible as their neighbors to treasure-seeking folklore. In addition to rod and stone divining, the Smith probably believed in the rudimentary astrology found in the ubiquitous almanacs." Words such as "susceptible" and "probably" do NOT indicate FACTS, they indicate OPINION - and THAT is a FACT. Therefore, I hold that Bushman cannot be used as a reliable source of FACT on this topic. Bushman's own words show that he is stating opinion, not fact. If you have other sources (as you indicate) which you can quote that will support the premise of this topic, please do so. Otherwise, please remove this opinion from this article as it is my understanding that Wikipedia articles are supposed to be based on, and supported with, sources of fact, not opinion.
Mcsand6 (
talk)
05:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Then please quote for me wherein he states 100% certainty on the issue of folk magic as the words "susceptible" and "probably" that were quoted don't indicate either certainty or fact. Can you also list for me the other sources you are referring to regarding the "complete consensus in the field."? And, I don't believe that seer stones are "folk magic" any more than I believe that the vision and prophecies in the Old and New Testament are "folk magic". Thus, if the only sources you have are regarding seer stones, you are not dealing with fact, but rather one person's belief that seer stones are folk magic over another person's belief that seer stones are of God. Mcsand6 ( talk) 05:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for providing some quotes for me. The one quote you did not reference is that of Lucy Mack Smith. You state that she "famously commented" on her family's use of magic but you did not quote the source of that statement. I own two copies of her own writings and do not find that quote anywhere in them. Would you please let me know the source of your quote? As far as my "beliefs" not being a legitimate objection to the definition of the Smith family's actions, I would say that when it comes to religious actions, such as a belief in seer stones, a person cannot simply redefine the actions as magic because they believe that they are. Religion is not science, it is spiritual and has to be defined in those terms, not in scientific or social terms. our comment about the "invisible man in the clouds" indicates your lack of religious belief and understanding, thus your opposition to my viewpoint. I don't see how a prophet of God's life can be discussed without a respect for religion and the impact it has in the lives a majority of the people in the United States. Yes, statistics show that the majority of citizens of the United States (to which this Wikipedia site is geared) ARE religious. Also, you ask me for evidence to dispute that the Smith family practiced magic. In the United States of America, one doesn't have prove one's innocence, others have to prove the guilt. Why do I need to provide evidence that the Smith family disputed ever having used magic? If they didn't use it, they wouldn't have ever talked about whether or not they used it. As for your quotes of scholars who attribute the use of magic to the Smith family, what are their sources? How do they know that they used magic. What proof do THEY have that what they are saying is true. Do they have eye-witness accounts? Or, are they just quoting the rhetoric and rumors of the day which continually flew at the members of the Smith family? Mcsand6 ( talk) 15:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I have done some further research on this subject and found that your "famous comment" attributed to Lucy Mack Smith was grossly misquoted. Here is her actual quote from her preliminary manuscript of "Biographical Sketches" p. 40, she told her reader NOT to think "that we stopt our labor and went at trying to win the faculty of Abrae drawing Magic circles or sooth saying to the neglect of all kinds of business." Also please note the following quote in the notes, written by Richard L. Bushman (H. Rodney Sharp Professor of History a the University of Dleaware), in his essay, "Joseph Smith's Family Background" (found in the book "The Prophet Joseph Smith, Essays on the Life and Mission of Joseph Smith", p. 18), "The evidence for Smith family involvement in treasure-seeking is presented in a controversial book by D. Michael Quinn, "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View" (Salt Lake City, Utah: Signature Books, 1987), pp. 1-52. Quinn argues that magical practices were consistent with religious faith in Joseph Smith's time. The book has been criticized for exaggerating the degree of Smith family involvement in magic and for making speculative leaps without sufficient confirming evidence. For another view of the Smith family and magic, see Bushman, "Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism", pp. 69-76." This essay, itself, also gives a very clear description of the Smith family activities that have been classified by others as practicing magic. Mcsand6 ( talk) 16:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Actually, her quote seems very straightforward to me, she doesn't want her neighbors to think that they stopped work in order to win the faculty of Abrae, draw magic circles, or to soothsay at the neglect of their business. You are twisting her words to say what you want them to say to support your beliefs. Just read the quote the way it was written and not twist it. Mcsand6 ( talk) 16:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
So, I think that you and I ought to agree to disagree. Mcsand6 ( talk) 18:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
(new indent) I prefer folk magic because the term magic is so broad and encompasses such a diverse set of beliefs. Folk magic was very common during this era allowing the common citizen to see no conflict between their Christian beliefs and using a divining rod to find their well. This really is an interesting topic. I know people in the panhandle of Florida who still use a divining rod. Others will still seek them out to properly locate their well before using a professional to dig for it. These people are not pagans, but just simple Protestants who use a rod to find water. -- Storm Rider 21:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I've squeezed a piped link to First Vision in the fourth paragraph of the intro. What do you think? Its a few words longer, but more strongly suggests Smith's revered status among followers. ...comments? ~ B F izz 07:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Once again, I am finding a lack of fact in the above statements. As a response to COGDEN, let me point out the errors in your last entry. First, where do you get the information that the " vision had become an important element of the story he told in his own mind about his prophethood, but there is no evidence he thought that the vision was as important as the modern LDS Church and the Community of Christ now consider it to be."? Joseph Smith, Jr. was persecuted from the moment he first told a local preacher about the vision until his murder over two decades later. Joseph Smith, Jr. spoke of his vision in the Sacred Grove to many, many people, as it was the beginning of God's renewed revelation to man about His Gospel and His Church which had been lost through a falling away after Christ's apostles were killed. It was NOT simple a personal conversion. It was a commandment he received from God, Himself, to not join any of the Churches on the earth at the time of Joseph's prayer as none of them had the fulness of Christ's Gospel, followed later by other angelic visits, directing him as to how to restore the fulness of Christ's Gospel. Second, while Joseph Smith, Jr.'s vision wasn't officially published before 1842, he did write about it several times in documents and letters. Third, Joseph Smith, Jr. NEVER spoke of the Priesthood being restored through Elijah. The Aaronic (or Levitical) Priesthood was restored through John the Baptist and the Melchizedek Priesthood was restored through Christ's Apostles, Peter, James, and John. Elijah revealed the Priesthood by restoring the blessings of the ordinances of the Temple, which include Baptism for the Dead and the sealing of a husband and wife together for Eternity, thus fulfilling the promise made in Malachi 4:5,6 which states "Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord: And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse." See Doctrine and Covenants Section 2:1-3, Section 27:9, Section 110:13-16, Section 128:16-18, all written by Joseph Smith, Jr. and published as canonized scripture. So, before you diminish the importance of Joseph Smith, Jr.'s First Vision, please discover for yourself the historical facts of its importance, as well as other historical facts related to Joseph Smith, Jr. Mcsand6 ( talk) 05:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
What you are saying is that first-person testimony has no veracity. Wow! I thought that in a court of law, it was third-person testimony which has no veracity as it is considered heresay. How convenient to simply dismiss that something occurred because the person who experienced it said it occurred. If you would like witnesses to corroborate his testimony, please read "Confirming Witnesses of the First Vision" by Milton V. Backman, Jr. You can find it at lds.org by reading the article in the Jan. 1986 Ensign, pp. 32-37. There, you will find many witnesses. Please don't tell me that this article makes no difference because it was published by members of the Church that Joseph Smith, Jr., himself, restored. When factual information about the Catholic Church is written, the authors don't dismiss information from the Catholic Church itself, they actually go to the SOURCE for that information, namely the Church being written about. Just to quote a few for you, in case you don't want to go to lds.org, here are some quotes from the article. The first is about Orson Pratt's witness: Orson Pratt "published a pamphlet now entitled REMARKABLE VISIONS.” 3 This missionary pamphlet was published in the fall of 1840 and contained the first account of the First Vision to appear in print. 4 It included a description of Joseph Smith’s early visions, from his initial theophany near Palmyra to the early appearances of Moroni and his experience with the three witnesses to the Book of Mormon. Elder Pratt reprinted the work twice in 1841 and again in 1842 (called the third American edition). In the American editions, it was enlarged to include an account of the restoration of the priesthood. A comparison of the pamphlet with Joseph Smith’s historical writings reveals that most major concepts included in the Prophet’s histories (especially the 1838 account) were included in Elder Pratt’s work. Since there are no direct quotations in the Pratt pamphlet, and since the literary style is very different from Joseph’s pre-1840 writings, Orson Pratt undoubtedly based his history on what he had learned from the teachings rather than the writings of Joseph."(Backman) To quote from the pamphlet itself (with the dates of the three separate publications in ()), "“And he was enrapped in a heavenly vision, and saw two glorious personages (1838, 1842) who exactly resembled each other in their features or likeness (1842). He was informed, that his sins were forgiven (1832). He was also informed upon the subjects, which had for some time previously agitated his mind, viz.—that all the religious denominations were believing in incorrect doctrines (1832, 1838, 1842); and, consequently that none of them was acknowledge of God, as his church and kingdom (1832). And he was expressly commanded, to go not after them (1838); and he received a promise that the true doctrine—the fulness of the gospel, should, at some future time, be made known to him (1842); after which, the vision withdrew, leaving his mind in a state of calmness and peace, indescribable(1832).” Orson Hyde became another witness when "in August 1842, he published a missionary pamphlet in Frankfurt, Germany, entitled, A Cry From the Wilderness, A Voice From the Dust of the Earth. 10 In his Cry from the Wilderness, Elder Hyde described Joseph’s search for truth, his introduction to James’s admonition on prayer, his prayer in the woods near his father’s house, the presence of the adversary, and the appearance of light following the darkness. While describing Joseph’s vision, Elder Hyde wrote that Joseph saw two glorious personages who resembled each other in stature and likeness. They informed him that he should not join any religious party, for they had all erred concerning doctrine, and that none of them was considered by God to be his church and kingdom. He was directed to wait until a later date when the true doctrine of Christ and the fulness of the gospel would be revealed to him. After the vision closed, Elder Hyde concluded, Joseph’s soul was filled with peace and calmness." (Backman) "John Taylor not only declared that he personally learned from Joseph Smith the basic truths unfolded during the First Vision, but proclaimed that Joseph Smith’s 1838 history discussing events preceding the organization of the Church was accurate." (Backman) Mcsand6 ( talk) 16:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Your statements regarding speculation are very interesting since all of the above comments and quotes I have read in this discussion seem to be based on speculation. You say that we can use first-hand witnesses, yet it's been discussed above that we can't rely on Joseph's first-hand witness of his vision as he is the only witness. I know that witnesses are subject to their character, so would you like character witnesses for the witnesses I cited in my above entry? I haven't seen, read, or heard of any character assassinations on Orson Pratt, Orson Hyde, or John Taylor. Do you have any evidence of such? Also, I'm not proselytizing, I am simply quoting witnesses to refute that Joseph Smith, Jr. didn't see what he said he saw. I don't apologize that the men of that day used religious terms to describe a religious experience, thus it shows up when I quote them. I'm not trying to proselytize you, just help you understand the facts of the experience which was talked about and written about by many people during the course of Joseph Smith, Jr.'s life who left written records of the evidence. Remember that physical evidence and empirical proof have never been the highest source of authority in religious matters, and Joseph Smith Jr.'s experience was a religious matter. In fact, physical evidence and empirical proof are low on the totem pole in relation to how the truth speaks to one's heart. Besides, how would a person who has an experience like Joseph Smith, Jr.'s vision, provide physical evidence and empirical proof of that experience? Mcsand6 (talk) 17:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
So one of the reasons that Wikipedia prefers secondary sources over primary sources is that the primary sources are so close the event. For instance, if the founder of a company writes a history of the company, they are doing a few things. First, there's a degree of revisionism- looking back and remembering things as you'd like them to be. Second, events that put the company in a poor light will be glossed over, spun, or completely ignored. This can happen if a personal critic of the company writes about it- small events will be magnified if they have an axe to grind.
So, that's the reason that secondary sources are giving extra weight on Wikipedia. Since you are new, let us know if you have questions about the policies. I'd suggest starting at Wikipedia's 5 pillars. Cheers, tedder ( talk) 18:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I disagree with your statement that "only a handful of Mormons, at most, knew about the First Vision". The quotes I stated from 3 contemporaries of Joseph Smith, Jr. indicate otherwise. I can quote journal entries of people, including my ancestors, who wrote about the First Vision. It was not a light experience in that it totally changed the concept of the nature of God that was prevalent at the time, as well as re-opening a communication between God and His prophets that had been closed for a long time. The nature of God that was revealed through Joseph's experience was a major topic of discussion from the early beginnings of the Church. I refer you back to the article in the 1986 Ensign for more quotes regarding that fact. As for Wikipedia's policies, I admit that I haven't read them and that I am a "newbie", however, I do know what establishes fact and what it only opinion. I find it ironic that everyone keeps changing their reasons for discounting my explanations from it not being from a reliable witness to it not being reliable because it's from a primary source. If that is the case, does that mean that we cannot quote Abraham Lincoln's speeches or writings to establish facts about his life, his campaigns, and his Presidency? Mcsand6 ( talk) 19:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I feel that the level of detail regarding (1) treasure hunting and (2) the angel Moroni/golden plates can be condensed. Those are the main topics of the section, so condensing of each should be roughly proportional, lest we fail at WP:UNDUE. This is trickier and I'll have to think a bit longer before I choose examples and make specific proposals, though I welcome yours. ...comments? ~ B F izz 20:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I was trying to be Bold and have put in for a request for Indefinite semi-protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, for anyone who wants to chime in. I constantly see reverts made due to vandalism. My resoning is that a very quick review of the edit history shows that in the last two months this article has been vandalized 16 times. All 16 of these were from anonymous (IP addresses) or non-autoconfirmed users. In the last 2000 edits the words "revert vandalism" was listed in the edit summary 84 times. This shows a clear pattern of “heavy sustained vandalism”, the given reason why a page should be Semi-protected, per WP:SILVERLOCK. A perfect example as why this page needs indefinite semi-protection is given at WP:NO-PREEMPT. It says “Semi-protection is used for articles, such as Jesus, that have a pattern of heavy sustained vandalism.” Not that I am trying to compare Joseph Smith to Jesus, I am only comparing there Wikipages. The Jesus page it about a religious figure, who some find controversial, whose page is heavily vandalized. This is a perfect example of the Joseph Smith page, a controversial religious figure whose page is heavily vandalized. This page need to be protected against anonymous and non-autoconfirmed users.-- ARTEST4ECHO talk 14:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Based on the news in the media about Wikipedia (being charged with posting child pornography) I couldn't not comment. I have been saying all along the problem in this article, as with Wikipedia in general, is the lack of substantial oversight. Because Wikimedia/Wikipedia exist not to answer to readership but to contributors, there appear some odd group dynamics which allow for extremist groups and perspectives to be maintained. It is exactly this problem which has likely led this article to be so negative and disrespectful in tone. I have recently visited the site on Jehovah's Witnesses (much greater sensitivity) and the site on Masons (maintained primarily by active Masons who are not accused of their POV). I had anticipated a similar anti group dynamic, but it wasn't there. It seems that this one is being "protected" by a more volatile group dynamic. As I asked Tedder, find me a more insensitive article and I'll go there to contribute. He still hasn't come up with one. Now I'm glad not to contribute and be supporting an organization involved with filth. Perhaps the rest of you might consider your participation in Wikipedia until they have restored their dignity, if that will even be possible.
Canadiandy1 ( talk) 14:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
The List of monuments and memorials of Joseph Smith, Jr. was proposed for deletion, with a consensus to merge it back into this article. I've temporarily userfied the content, so we need not rush to include it. Just something to be aware of. ...comments? ~ B F izz 21:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I've added a new "impact" subsection in the "legacy" section. I think this was missing from the article. It covers what Smith "means" to those that came after him. Any comments? COGDEN 04:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
A while ago I stated that I intended to review each section of this article, in preparation for a GA nomination on June 1. However, that pesky Real Life (tm) distracted me from this goal and I've been letting it slide. Rather than attempt to conduct the in-depth review that I intended, I'll simply lean on Finetooth's fantastic peer review of the article. He makes several sound suggestions; I'm not entirely sure if anyone has taken action on them. In any event, I take heart in Finetooth's statement: "I think this article is not far from being ready for FAC".
One thing that should probably wait until later is the matter of notes. Finetooth mentions that our note system could be improved to be more like the article Voyage of the Karluk. I agree that we should gut and revamp our notes system for a cleaner presentation, but it's something that I, for one, am going to leave for later.
I plan to take this week to assure that most of Finetooth's other suggestions are enacted, and will nominate the article for GA status next week. I would much appreciate any help you wish to offer (and do appreciate the hard work that many of you, especially John Foxe and COgden, have put into this article). ...comments? ~ B F izz 03:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
The subsections of the 'Distinctive views and teachings' section do a good job of illustrating each particular point. However, I feel that we should also include a summary paragraph for the section that touches on the bigger picture, like the first and last paragraphs of the lede of Teachings of Joseph Smith, Jr. What do you (all) think? ...comments? ~ B F izz 05:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Finetooth noted that we don't have a source for the paragraph in the Teachings section that starts with "Smith strongly favored U.S. constitutional rights". COgden, have you got anything for this? ...comments? ~ B F izz 05:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I've gone through and given all of the images alt text (prompted by Finetooth's suggestion). Review the diffs at your leisure and make sure they conform with your understanding of WP:ALT. Thanks. ...comments? ~ B F izz 22:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I started an exercise to find out about the neutrality of this article, or lack thereof. I went through about the first 74 references and notes. In my reckoning, there were 17 positive statements referenced or noted, 30 neutral, and 27 negative ones. This is evidence to me that the article, particularly the part I went through, is not NPOV. I read a lot more than that, and what I read has a negative tone. There are plenty of people, like me, that believe that Joseph Smith was a man of good character and a prophet of God. That is not adequately represented in contrast to the people who believe he was a fraud and not a good man. I wish people would not publish lies and focus on the negative aspects of Joseph Smith's life to put him in a bad light. -- 96.31.118.209 ( talk) 04:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to put this article up at WP:Good article nominations tomorrow, if no one has any objections. I invite you to wrap up any major tweaking by that time. If there is a significant chunk of work you would like to do before the nomination, just let me know and we can postpone the nomination a few days. ...comments? ~ B F izz 22:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
There are a number of references that are never actually cited in the article. I think we should delete these. For example, we never cite Andrus (1973), Bennett (1842), Berge (1985), etc. In some cases, a reference is cited only once, like Booth (1831). In such cases, I think we might want to consider moving the citation to the single footnote where they are referenced. My view is that the "References" section should contain only sources that are cited multiple times in the article. We also ought to make sure everything we cite in the footnotes is either cited in full in the footnote or included in the "References" section. COGDEN 00:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
: Unknown parameter |publication-year=
ignored (
help).{{
citation}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link).{{
citation}}
: More than one of |author=
and |last1=
specified (
help).{{
citation}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link), copied to Smith, Joseph, Jr.; Mulholland, James; Thompson, Robert B.;
Phelps, William W.;
Richards, Willard (1839–1843),
"History of the Church, Ms. A–1", in
Jessee, Dean C (ed.), Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book (published 2002),
ISBN
1-57345-787-6{{
citation}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link).Criteria 3 (b) of the Good article criteria is: "it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)." Is there a general article about Joseph Smith, Jr that the general reader could read that does not have so much detail as this one does? Regards, Xtzou ( Talk) 19:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I've made a few changes to the wikilinks in the lede to make them more closely conform to WP policy as I understand it (and to my own preference). Does anyone oppose to saying in the lede "he founded the Church of Christ" as opposed to "he founded a church"? ...comments? ~ B F izz 05:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Don't know if this has been discussed before as I am new to the article. On a quick read I failed to see it mentioned in the article, or in the Talk archives. Smith was convicted in Bainbridge in 1826, (also referenced in the book No Man Knows by History by Fawn M. Brodie)
STATE OF NEW YORK v. JOSEPH SMITH. Warrant issued upon written complaint upon oath of Peter G. Bridgeman, who informed that one Joseph Smith of Bainbridge was a disorderly person and an imposter. Prisoner brought before Court March 20, 1826...
Shouldn't this be mentioned? Or am I missing something? -- Alexf (talk) 20:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I've just made, [2]. Please ignore the other two edits prior to that, they were in error and I reverted in such.
Firstly, I removed the part about Oliver Cowdery's profession, because as stated above in the GA points we do have the problem of excessive detail. Stating he was a "teacher and a dowser" in my opinion, exists simply as a piece of irrelevant spin to tune in the article in and emphasise opinion + doubt about his character and Joseph Smith's claims. We dont need nor want this type of thing in the article, so I removed it. Because all that should be stated is "Joseph Smith met Oliver Cowdery and began re-translating". That is th established fact, and adding anything on to that is simply spinning it to generate an impression.
Secondly, I got shot of this. "to ensure that the lost pages could not later be found and compared to the re-translation.". If anything, that again is excessive detail. But my most critical point is, it's synthesis and at worst original research. How? as the fact is stated, and then whoever wrote this seems to have added it in as a self drawn opinion and conclusion from the information stated source. There is no direct evidence to the statement I removed here other than individualistic judgement rendered by self opinion and viewpoint. Hence, the fact is stated on the opinion via a viewpoint, it is incompatible with the article. If this is to be a GA (and I will not oppose the cause on bitterness, which I made the mistake of above; rather I'd be more willing to work on it as long as the article merits it), this kind of unnecessary self drawn commentary ought to be avoided, and believe me the article is rife with it. Routerone ( talk) 16:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
(ec) I tend to agree with the removal of Cowdry's background information. I'm not sure how Cowdry's background is worth having on a page about Smith. It certainly belongs on Cowdry's page, and perhaps on Origin of the Book of Mormon, but not on an introductory page about Smith. tedder ( talk) 18:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I got to read on a website that has his ancestry genealogy on there that had emperor constantine the great, viking and danish kings as ancestors. Is that all true? Its a website about the smith family that you can find on a link on Joseph Smith, Sr.'s website. Please answer me and thank you.- Jana —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.54.66.213 ( talk) 21:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
"Smith said he attempted to remove the plates the next morning but was unsuccessful because the angel struck him down with supernatural force."
Where is this info coming from "struck down" and "with force". Oh, and the words "mystical" and/or "magical" are quite the touch for describing what was very firmly described personally by Joseph as "Sacred" and "Holy". Quite a play on words we get from the writers on here. Obviously the quoted text we are currently getting from this Wikipedia article is not from the personal account of Joseph Smith, Jr. because he never said anything such things. Only the Church which he started contains his original writings and manuscripts and the original writings and manuscript of those people who worked alongside the man. That means that all other outsider historians cannot quote Joseph correctly unless they refer to the publications of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. One cannot say there are any other believable sources for his words as former members that were unrepentant sinners who were excommunicated obviously had a hard biases against the prophet, and viciously attacked with their words. These cannot be believable accounts in historical record. As far as what splinter group churches currently may say...I'm not sure but I think all these churches together make up like less than 1% in Church membership as compared to the said Church. So they are not believable themeselves. Oh, and back then at the time by far the majority of the General Church Authorities stayed with the Church mentioned when it came time to decide after Joseph's death. So back to the original question, who else was there to eyewitness the event?? Nobody else. So this account must be coming from someone who wrote the hearsay of local folk or even more distant unbelievable witnesses. There was only one eye witness in that scene and it was Joseph himself. Period. Therefore no other account can be trusted. Would this not be a fair assessment? How would you like it if you wrote your own account of a lone personal experience that changed your life and then everyone started making up their own versions of what they think probably happened? That would be a source of invalid historical accounts and that is what makes up a good portion of the entire Wikipedia Joseph Smith, Jr. article. This is also why many church members shun this site. Basically it comes down to a fight, so since this article concerns the teachings of Jesus Christ it behooves us to not fight about it (contention is not of God). If you want the finest scholarly source that can be found on the subject look up "The Joseph Smith Papers." It is a relatively new project that is coming out in annual installments that will eventually comprise 30 volumes. It contains the photo copies of the original Joseph Smith's personal journal entries, correspondance, discourses and written histories, and legal and business documents written in his own hand or by the hands of those working alongside him.
There isn't a publication about this subject on this planet that is as scholarly as this one. I mean honestly, rumors written taken to be as historical fact??? Just because someone claims to be an authority, though they be from the same time does not make them so. Just because someone says they are an eyewitness does not mean they were. We have to learn to read inbetween the lines sometimes. Look at the statements from Joseph Smith, Jr. himself and then look at the garbage that is written about him and ask yourself if the two sides match. They do not. The character portrayed by these so called historical eye witnesses of the time do not at all match up with what the man said and what he taught. Only those who take enough care and time to search out and study these things know this. Otherwise it is just outside haters that throw up an off-hand at the man and trust unnofficial sources that claim scholarly research and work. What a diservice to Wikipedia. The only way you can get to know about Joseph Smith Jr and what he believed is by reading his own account and the account of those who worked along side him for substantial amounts of time. And such information is *not* located on Wikipedia.org currently.-- steve200255 ( talk) 20:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Just get rid of "supernatural." That will probably shut steve up and won't disappoint 129.82.88.48 too badly. -- 63.226.104.225 ( talk) 16:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Done! Removed "supernatural" from the sentence in question. --
CABEGOD
00:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Padillah and Steve. I am prepared to be BOLD but want to discuss first. Yes Padillah, I suggest a change. That change is a revert to August 29, 2003. As to John Foxe's statement he is the only non-member contributing, that is because he and COgden seem to be the only two who don't have their edits reverted. Si if I have Padillah, Steve, and Routerone on side for a do over (revert to august 29, 2003) lets put it to vote. If you follow Foxe's argument that this would be turned into a "Faith-Promoting" article, please go to the revert and ask if it reads as unfairly biased. Then come back here and ask if this sounds biased. Then make your call. BE BOLD!
Who agrees with an August 29 2003 revert,
Canadiandy: Yes.
173.180.110.164 ( talk) 14:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
I agree, BFizz. The Aug 30 article is just fine too. It even includes a reference and link to Brodie for those wanting that perspective. I do understand your concern regarding the article 'approaching' Good Article status, but I think the very reason it isn't (and very likely won't) is because of exactly what has changed, 1. It is much longer. 2 As it stands it is highly inflammatory and negatively cynical (as opposed to neutral) of Joseph Smith. Please reconsider, I know it would be a huge leap, but we can't kid ourselves that this article has become incredibly messy and reads more like an expose'.
Thanks for responding with respect and serious consideration.
So let's repose the question,
Who votes to revert to August 30, 2003?
I vote yes.
173.180.110.164 ( talk) 01:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
![]() | 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 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 20 |
Okay, so this edit was added, then removed, then edit warred by a few editors. It's probably a good time to invoke WP:BRD: in other words, it's been boldly added, boldly removed, but has not been boldly discussed.
Please discuss it here- I'll probably full-protect the article to prevent further edit warring if necessary. Note I'm not making a judgment for or against the content- just that it's been disputed, and if we are following BRD, it should stay off the page until there is consensus. tedder ( talk) 18:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Bushman notes that area residents connected the discovery of the Book of Mormon with Smith's past career as a money digger. "From that perspective, money-digging and the Book of Mormon were both fraudulent schemes." Bushman (2005, p. 117)
Tedder, any objection to making this change and then unprotecting? I could do it if you prefer. After a cooling-off period, I think the involved editors have moved beyond it, and it has morphed into something else now. Maybe something like the above edit would remain stable. COGDEN 02:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Goodness people. If there is this much debate about Joseph Smith, Jr., I would recommend making a new page for "Critique of Joseph Smith, Jr." or something of the like. Editing wars do not help people who are trying to get information from Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.248.140.146 ( talk) 22:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Apparently stating that Smith was the "first prophet" of the latter day saint movement is LDS POV and therefore isn't warranted in the article. To an extent I can see where that point stems from considering those outside the movement don't consider him to be a prophet; but as those inside of the movement see him as a prophet shouldn't it be mentioned as such just to signify that?
Afterall; the articles on other claimed prophets are treat very, very differently. For example look at this in the lead paragraph of the article Muhammad:
"the greatest law-bearer in a series of Islamic prophets and by most Muslims the last prophet as taught by the Qur'an"
"He lived approximately 2700 years ago and was a prophet in the 8th-century BC Kingdom of Judah"
"was a prophet in Israel in the 9th century BC"
Those are just three out of numerous examples, so why is it that Joseph Smith is treated differently from them? Afterall the "prophethood" of non of those individuals has even been proven as authenic just as people would say about Smith's, and likeywise they are not beyond criticism. They are religious figures and hence the same rules apply, so why is it if the word "prophet" is used in this page people come crying out saying "POV! POV!".
Because if it is "POV" then those articles above are also POV Pushing then. So really considering Smith is regarded as the first of a line of prophets by those in the LDS movement, it should be stated as "first prophet", this is not POV as the usage of the words "of the latter day saint movement" changes the context so it shows that only in their POV they regard him as such, it is not asking others to agree. They regard him as a prophet like it or not, and other professional encyclopedia pages call him "the latter day saint prophet". So halt the prejudice against the LDS please. Routerone ( talk) 08:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Of people trying to tell me what I can and cannot do to this article, outside of the LDS field here on wikipedia I am free to add and edit anything (which is legitimate obviously) to any single page on wikipedia and its rare that people will kick up a fuss about it. Yet here it is "revert, revert, revert" and ultimately I find it obnoxious that there are people presiding over this article thinking they are arbitrators of what can be altered/added to the page.
I try to add in genuine first hand accounts from Martin Harris and I'm reverted for being "apologetic" and "point of view pushing" and even for quoting a book which is skeptical of Mormonism, how does that work out? This article and many other LDS ones are floated on first hand accounts from Smith's associates, but yet their accounts only seem to be "allowed" if they suggest something against him and anything positive is rounded off for being "bias" which again I think is unjust and pathetic. John Foxe, you don't like it if I remove your cited content without an explained reason, yet you just went and done the same thing to me, how is that justified? There was nothing wrong with the content I put in that page, it basically explained the following things:
But now, if Harris said something which was slightly against Smith, I am sure it would be quoted in there, exaggerated and defended no doubt. My points were cited, and are without a doubt useful to the article, this "revert" culture needs to stop, if people want to change this page then they should have the right to do so, rather than one editor building an incredibly negative bias version of the page and then reverting anyone who tries to change it. Is that justice? Is that what this website is all about? Routerone ( talk) 15:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Baseballbugs, the article states that he is a "prophet of the Latter Day Saint movement". It's not an "unqualified label", it's a historical fact. If the article asserted he were a "true prophet" or "sent from God" prophet, then that would be POV. See Routerone's argument in previous discussion for comparison with other examples such as Elijah. As for Duke, Foxe, and Routerone, I dare you to stop using the shiny revert button. Instead, try to actually integrate the new and old material into a form that is acceptable by everyone. Reword. Reorganize. Use your brain. I'll try and help when I have more time. And most certainly work with sub-articles as COgden has suggested. ...but what do you think? ~ B F izz 17:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Bugs, your comment just goes to reinforce the problems that occur when our critics try to define our history and beliefs. The title 'Prophet' is not merely an opinioned title, it is the official term used to describe an office within the Melchizidek Priesthood. It is no more biased to call Joseph a prophet than to call John Paul a pope. For Muhammed (strawman rhetoric) the title is not reflective of office. If the anti-Mormons didn't rule the roost here these types of errors would have been gone long ago. Hold your ground, Routerone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiandy1 ( talk • contribs) 13:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't see how any local consensus to describe him as "prophet" can be respected. Believing Smith to be a prophet is pretty much the belief that distinguishes the LDS from the rest of the world. There's no reason to belittle that belief, but it is far from universally held.— Kww( talk) 18:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I've been gone all day. Baseball Bugs's post immediately above mine was the suggestion on WP:ANI; I really think it's better wording to (a) be consistent with other "religious leader" pages, and (b) I'd think that the more pro-LDS folks would especially be for that. On the other hand, using scare quotes, like some versions had, is a bad thing. tedder ( talk) 03:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if this helps or if I'm just stirring the pot but I've noticed, if the subject is real historical person, their placement in the various divinity is subject to qualifiers. i.e. Muhammad "is regarded by Muslims as a messenger and prophet of God", Gautama Buddha "In most Buddhist traditions, he is regarded as the Supreme Buddha", Sun Myung Moon "it is believed by many Unification Church members, that he is the Messiah and the Second Coming of Christ", Bahá'u'lláh "claimed to be the prophetic fulfillment of Bábism", and, of course, Jesus "central figure of Christianity, which views him as the Messiah foretold in the Old Testament" and "most Christian denominations believing him to be the Son of God"
But, if the person themselves is not historical then the wording can stand as statement. i.e. Elija "was a prophet in Israel in the 9th century BC." or Isaiah "was a prophet in the 8th-century BC Kingdom of Judah.", or Moses "was, according to the Hebrew Bible, a religious leader, lawgiver, and prophet" (and even that is qualified).
So it looks to me like we have a de facto standard of giving fictional characters the benefit of the doubt while holding historical persons to a higher standard. That's my 2 cents.
Padillah (
talk)
12:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Apparently saying that someone is a prophet means something different to me than it means to many of my fellow editors here at Wikipedia. I see no trouble in saying "Elijah was a prophet of Israel", "Moses was a prophet of the Old Testament", or "Muhammad was a prophet of Islam". To me, these are not assertions of the veracity of the subject's divine calling, but rather, statements of cultural status: who these people were with respect to some culture or time frame. Does anyone truly feel that writing "Joseph Smith was the founder and prophet of the Latter Day Saint movement" is an unbalanced statement? It clearly conveys who Joseph Smith was to the Latter Day Saint movement: not just its founder but its prophet. Does anyone truly feel that this statement implies that his true prophethood is an undisputed fact?
I find it bizarre that the argument is raised by several editors that the statement implies more than I think it does. I again refer to the Elijah example: Elijah ... whose name means "Yahweh is God," was a prophet in Israel in the 9th century BC. Is that an inappropriate POV? No. It is a statement of cultural regard, and I doubt that anyone really misunderstands that, whether or not they believe that Elijah communicated with the divine. ...but what do you think? ~ B F izz 04:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
May I briefly attack this from another angle? Encyclopaedia Britannica's summary of him is "Mormon prophet and founder of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." Reference.com, licensing from Columbia University Press, states that "As prophet and seer he founded (1830) his church in Fayette". Neither feel the need to say "adherents believe him to be a prophet" because its redundant and obvious. Cut out the obvious; say he's a prophet. The clear implication is that "he is believed to be a prophet by believers". ...but what do you think? ~ B F izz 05:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
One problem we have here is the plain meaning of the word and the use of it as a title. "So-and-so was a prophet" means two different things, depending on context. Going back to my earlier example, " David Duke was a wizard" is a clearly different statement from " David Duke held the title of Grand Wizard within the Ku Klux Klan". If the word "prophet" is meant as a title, the sentence structure has to make that distinction clear.— Kww( talk) 15:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Canadiandy1 ( talk) 01:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
Likewise, anyone not lds faithful is obviously biased so as to not promote the faith. For the record, I mostly share the same idea as COgden: "he was a prophet" is descriptive, not metaphysical. Let me reason in two different ways why I think this way.
Canadiandy1 (
talk)
05:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
I am really puzzled by the confusion that remains here. First, people need to know that the term prophet is used in two ways by the LDS. In essence, any individual who is given revelation which is pertinent to the future is acting prophetically. Thus, any individual (in or out of the Church) might prophecy and thereby be referred to as a small-'p' prophet. However, some individuals are formally ordained (by laying on of hands) as Prophets, Seers, and Revelators. Thus, Brother Jones may be a Bishop, a High Priest, an Apostle, and a Prophet at the same time (we actually have 15 prophets if you wish to pursue the issue). Unique to the LDS belief is the understanding that the authority of Priesthood offices are retained, based on worthiness, forever. So while Joseph Smith acted prophetically, he also held the titles of, Elder, Apostle, Prophet, President, and High Priest. It could also be said he was a Deacon, a Teacher, and a Priest. These are titles. In fact, broken down by office and (common usage)
Aaronic (preparatory) Priesthood Deacon (Brother Jones) Teacher (Brother Jones) Priest (Brother Jones) Bishop (Bishop Jones)
Melchizidek Priesthood Elder (Elder Jones) Seventy (Elder Jones) High Priest (Brother Jones) Patriarch (Formerly Patriarch Jones, new policy recommends Brother Jones) Apostle (senior Quorum member designated Prophet, or President Jones)
Consider this fact. Joseph Smith's father served for years as the Patriarch of the Church. While he was a patriarch (speaking of his role as a father) it would sound silly to state that Joseph Smith Sr. was the (small 'p') patriarch of the church.
Joseph Smith, while a 'p'rophet, was also a 'P'rophet by virtue of Priesthood office. Thus Pope John Paul, President Obama, Prophet Smith (though the term President Smith is more commonly used). So feel free to refuse to identify Joseph Smith as a 'p'rophet. But it is insensitive to both the RLDS and the LDS and erroneous to ignore the fact Joseph Smith was a 'P'rophet (an office in the High Priesthood). I don't follow the Pope, but I wouldn't deny he is one. You don't have to believe Smith was a prophet, to accept he was a Prophet in the LDS Priesthood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiandy1 ( talk • contribs) 05:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Several have proposed the removal of "and an important political figure in the United States" from the first sentence. I also agree with the removal. Was there anyone that objected to this removal? ...but what do you think? ~ B F izz 01:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
"Joseph Smith (December 23, 1805 – June 27, 1844) was the founder and [a] [Prophet/prophet] of the Latter Day Saint movement."
My personal preference is to leave out the 'a' and use the lowercase 'p'. But as far as I can tell, the following editors would accept one of the above variations of the first sentence:
As far as I can tell, the following editors express disapproval of all of the above variations of the sentence:
And as far as I can tell, the following editors have not made a clear statement either way, though they would probably err on the side of not using 'prophet':
As far as I understand, the following are the various options and reasons behind each one. My stating an argument here is not necessarily an agreement with said argument:
Have I accurately captured the essence of all perspectives in the discussion thusfar? I continue to support option #1, as my reasoning in the Implications section has not yet been addressed with a convincing counterargument. ...but what do you think? ~ B F izz 01:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
The qualification "considered to be" is itself a pointed disclaimer and not neutrality. Clearly readers will understand Wikipedia is not advocating that Smith's prophetic role is to be universally accepted dogma. Besides, it just makes it even more wordy and annoying. I mean, what some accept as Wikipedia should not, according to some, be what many scholars consider to be, an arguably small-'n' neutral agency who, as is reported, is viewed by anywhere from 300 to 3 trillion individuals in one week (by the Gregorian calendar). Canadiandy1 ( talk) 02:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
There have been issues raised concerning the use of "founder and first prophet of the Latter Day Saint movement" since most Latter Day Saints believe in and claim prophets (for example, Old Testament prophets) that predate Smith. I personally find this wording acceptable since Smith was the first prophet to claimed solely by the LDS movement. I don't have a strong opinion for or against using "first". As for Foxe's comment, like COgden said, the movement isn't an organization. Furthermore I'd say that Monson is referred to as "THE" prophet of the LDS Church because he's the current living President of that organization. I still feel that "THE prophet of the Latter Day Saint movement" can easily be identified as JSJr and adherents of the LDS Church, as well as adherents of other Latter Day Saint churches, would probably agree with the statement. Human language, with its many implications and unspoken assumptions, can be so troublesome. ...but what do you think? ~ B F izz 00:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Question: where do we stand on the lead sentence? Did we ever come to a conclusion? My question being "Was Joseph Smith Jr. the first President of the LDS church?" Seeing as how the dissensions and reformations happened after his death the Church should have been well established by then. This makes the sentence "...was founder and first President..." correct and IMO the best candidate for lead (using Monson's article as a basis). Padillah ( talk) 14:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
The article states that, "Smith was a materialist, teaching that all spirit was material but composed of matter so fine that it was invisible to all but the purest mortal eyes," which is like saying, Mulroney was an alcoholic, being a man who drank habitually to excess." It is redundant and could be simplified by simply stating, "Smith taught that all spirit was material but composed of matter so fine that it was invisible to all but the purest mortal eyes."
In fact, to some unfamiliar with the term they might assume 'Materialist[s]' were a religious group or some unfamiliar fringe collective body further confusing this statement.
99.199.139.154 ( talk) 01:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
Thanks for your fair support on this one, COgden. You'll have to post it though as I've been 'editorially neutered' by Tedder. In essence he compared me as equivalent in status to Duke53. For any interested I'm pasting his posting and my response. Sorry for any hard feelings.
Tedder wrote:
"This is actually a multifaceted problem. Certainly routerone's recent personal attack is a problem ([36]). Duke53 seems to only be around to cause trouble- but Canadiandy, who edits as IPs and a username, isn't much better- at least duke53 makes valid contributions to Wikipedia; Canadiandy only posts on a few talk pages and has made few or no actual contributions, meaning both of the users are in the WP:SPA camp as far as I can tell."
I replied:
"I don't know if I'm allowed to post here or if it's good form either. If I am in error I plead ignorance and not malice. First, I'm not sure about the problem with me editing as "IPs." I don't know if I'm the only one who finds this confusing. I am assuming you are referring to my need to create a user name and be logged in? I believe I have been doing that since learning of it with a much greater frequency of late, though I admit I had a time when I was doubly confused after being accused of double signing in (I believe the concern was I was both logged in and '4-tildeing').
To the accusation that I make few or no actual contributions, that is, I feel, completely unfair. In the beginning I was trying to 'learn the ropes' and let the senior members edit while I simply offered insight for improvement. I don't think there's more than 3% of my postings that do not make recommendations for improvement. That I am of the opinion that the article is slanted, and that my opinions are critical of that slant do not mean I have no recommendations for improvement. In fact, on the several suggestions I have made (rewording the term 'movement', capitalizing the word 'prophet' to reflect title, adding references to 'dynastic' nature of temple marriages, exploring validity of Brodie as a reliable source, and recently editing the term 'materialist' based on redundancy) most are usually met with a wall of text against what seem to be very fair proposals. Perhaps this is the context that has Routerone so frustrated.
And now I am accused of being worse than Duke53?
In my defense, I have picked up an awful lot of procedural knowledge in the short few months I've been here. I have apologized readily if I have been insensitive or out of line. I have been busy and offered original insight into systemic challenges and how they might be overcome in an effort to bring real fairness to the article. To the accusation I am an SPA, I am an incredibly new contributor. In that short time I have posted here extensively, but I have also branched into the "Mark Hoffman" article, "Beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints," and I even posted on the "Martin Luther" board against what I feel are unfair accusations of his Nazi influence. Tedder, you have the right to your opinion, but is this how new contributors are usually treated?
You will notice I actually spoke up in opposition to Routerone's statements concerning COgden, though I fully understand his frustration. I believe I have been fair and cautious. I have been focused on improving the article primarily, though I do admit posting occasional responses to offenses I have felt based on the criticisms hoisted against a man I revere as a great religious leader of my faith. Even this was done not in attack but on the assumption others might not understand the impact has on many orthodox 'Mormons.'
Your post here is, I feel, unwarranted, and unfair. But if this is going to continue to be my experience here I have better things to do. I understand hearing these kind of accusations on the discussion page. But when it comes from a senior member it is humiliating. Consider me gone. You win.
Sorry Routerone, looks like you're the last leaf on the tree and there's a stiff wind blowing.
Canadiandy1 ( talk) 03:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
COgden, thanks for the respect. Truth is, they don't pay me to do this job, and I owe no allegiance to Wikipedia. So as long as individuals like Tedder run roughshod on my contributions, I'll step aside and let the article go for a season.
Hold in there Brother Routerone, sorry I can't join you on the Trek. Watch for wolves.
199.60.41.15 ( talk) 20:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
I would like to propose an "amendment" to the content of this page in regards to a cited statement in the article which makes a direct claim that "the plates themselves were not directly consulted".
On doing research, I have discovered that this "statement" is a gross misinterpretation of the source which is supporting it, and that the statement is infact synthesis, a self drawn conclusion drawn from information the source gives, and hence the statement is not in allignment with what the source is actually saying.
This is the source:
This is the footnote (please note it is not drawn directly from the source content):
Now this is the text from the sources themselves:
My issue is with this, is that looking at the information the source gives, it cannot be deduced that the plates were in the woods during these times" yet the person who placed this in the article (COGDen) seems to have drew an unverfied conclusion from this source adding his own judgement into it, that is synthesis. The source says "After that, the Plates were said to be hid in the woods". It does not say anything at all on the "plates were not always directly consulted during translation" but rather it seems to make a reference to one event where Smith wrote down characters for Harris, known as the Anthon Transcript and that's it. But ultimately COGDen has interpreted "After this, I became dissatisfied, and informed him that if there was any thing in my house of that description, which I could not be allowed to see, he must take it away; if he did not, I was determined to see it" to meaning that the plates were never in the building. However, outside of that one account no evidence suggests that, and no evidence at all other than adding a self made conclusion to that source says "the plates were not directly consulted"
So as the statement in the article is merely a conclusion drawn from an indirect statement in the source, I am requesting its removal on the basis that it is merely synthesis being presented as fact, which is unfair. This is not a place for speculation. Routerone ( talk) 17:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I just reverted COgden's edit; consensus needs to be achieved once consensus has been raised. COgden, I looked at Bushman "Rough Stone...", page 71 and I am a bit confused. In the second to the last paragraph it clearly states the plates were on the table, the Urim and Thummim was used, and a blanket was used with Martin Harris. This conflicts badly with the generalization made in your recent edit. I strongly recommend that generalizations not be used, no blanket comments, and allowances should be made for conflicting reliables resources. -- Storm Rider 22:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
New Mormon History?
Translation: intellectuals defining other people's religion's history for them cause they're too dumb to do it themselves.
Sounds condescending, arrogant, and mean-spirited all at the same time.
Reminds me of the Europeans who came to America and worked really hard to "civilize" the native 'barbarians.' But if I'm not eager to embrace NMH I guess I must be one of those "angry Mormons who have little interest in mainstream scholarship."
99.199.139.154 ( talk) 06:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
Bugs, a polite request. The term 'Indian' may be appropriate in the US, but here in Canada it is not culturally sensitive. We use the term First Nations. And we do have a problem here with the European chronicles of our First Nations. Objective or not, our First Nations get pretty steamed when academics try to pigeon hole them and tell them their own history. It makes me think of the visiting sociology students and how silly they look trying to join in a Potlatch (ceremonial) dance. Both analogies stand.
Thanks,
99.199.139.154 ( talk) 22:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
I don't think I was acting sarcastically as much as I was responding with offense at this arrogant "New" Mormon History. It's as out of touch as a lecture by George W. Bush on the modern African American youth dialects. As if I'm supposed to cheer for a bunch of University skeptics who will define my religious or cultural history?
What you keep failing to realize is that there is an incredibly insensitive approach to defining LDS history here. From my academic experience this outsider approach to history is Old School. Consider First Nations studies. Historians who study their culture and beliefs from the outside are quickly discredited and actually restricted from access to songs and legends. The new approach is to work from inside the cultural group to provide sensitivity, context, and accuracy to social research. This is far more effective in the long run. If it had been used in the first place we wouldn't have needed to spend 5 pages of debate figuring out that 'Prophet' should be capitalized. And the edit wars here would be far less polarized.
How does this contribute to the article? It gets at the very root of why it is so biased, polarized, offensive, and unreliable. Now I'm not so naive as to expect the current editors to get that, but that shouldn't keep me from a hope that somehow the lightbulb will click with maybe even one and begin to turn this thing around. It's like a train heading the wrong way. Just speeding up won't help.
Please ask yourself if the presentation of your own religions, cultures, or histories wouldn't benefit from a more socially respectful historical approach?
New Mormon History, maybe that's the real enemy here.
99.199.139.154 ( talk) 02:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
Hmm, Oakes is quite the scholar. So are Marlin K. Jensen, Turley, Holland, Jessee, Welch, Backman, Walker, Turner... . None of their research has been challenged (except by those who feel any Mormons not finding major fault with Joseph Smith must be biased Mormons) and I don't see many references from them. What we have here now, unless we can rethink our approach, is a natural selection committee. It seems the world is scoured for Mormon scholars whose research (in or out of context) is most inflammatory or skeptical. It is not THAT Mormons are referenced, it's WHICH Mormons seem to be embraced. Brodie (a bitter ex-Mormon), Bachman (who is extremely unhappy with how his research has been manipulated to defame Joseph Smith), we've had this discussion before, so please don't stand them up as "mainstream" Mormons. I don't question their loyalty and faith in the Church, but they sure don't reflect the common tenor of research I have seen from BYU, CHD, or even FAIR LDS.
And please, the term Red Herring is of Canadian origin. I know what it means. It implies I am trying to avoid the issue (what issue, this is it's own issue) or divert from it. Saying such is not only contrary to good will, but it is also erroneous. I understand your likeliness to take offense at my opposition to New Mormon History. I just don't think we're going to agree that there's anything gained from championing criticism (regardless of the intent) of any religion, culture, or faith. So, call it what you will, New Mormon History is Old School.
99.199.139.154 ( talk) 16:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
I'll close the discussion with the reflections of Armund Mauss. He identified New Mormon History as historical scholarship that, "became more detached and academic." You call it 'New.' It started 50 years ago. You call it Mormon, the 'Mormon' Church is not its author. You call it History, well, there we will have to disagree, I call it more often a manipulation of evidences. So in short, New Mormon History is neither new, nor Mormon, nor history. If you're looking for a new term I propose 'Scholarly Cynical Urbanite Muckraking.' Sorry about the acronym.
Unless someone wants to hit me with another 'Red Herring,' I'm done on this one. 99.199.139.154 ( talk) 21:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
What do I think? I think that being Mormon (or any other religion for that matter) should be completely beside the point. Either a fact is appropriate for inclusion or it is not - period. Just because a fact could be interpreted as supporting or attacking a certain point of view does not make the fact any more or less based in reality. I don't care what other editors are trying to do, let's make the article better. I'd rather be right than win an argument. Padillah ( talk) 12:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I've posted to WP:CCN#Conflict at article Joseph Smith, Jr., specifically mentioning Routerone and Duke53. Please be aware of the noticeboard post. ...comments? ~ B F izz 01:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Hey all, (don't worry I'm just back to give you an update on events relating to this section). In the end (and outside the scope of the posted conflict) Tedder turned the blame on me for the excessive debate. In his words, "I've long considered you [Canadiandy] a troll." Makes me wonder why he didn't mention it earlier, but I know when I'm beat. Sorry for trolling, not sure what that really means now, but, whatever. I have a clean conscience that I did what I could to stand up for fairness, and now my family gets more of my time. I win, you win, and the article is what it is.
Sorry for any hard feelings Duke, John, and COgden. Especially, John. We don't agree, but I got a little defensive back there. Stay strong Routerone and BFizz.
Gonna go find me an old bridge to hang out under.
And please, I'd like to drop this so no parting shots.
Canadiandy1 ( talk) 06:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
Can anyone explain why Joseph Smith's 'First Vision' is conspicuously absent in the opening paragraphs? Yeah, I know people will pull out his so-called changing story. But as the Joseph Smith History (Smith's final account, written by his own hand) clearly states,
If we are attempting a summation it should at least attempt chronology. And if it is a matter of which version is more reliable, academically the more recent would be favored. First came the First Vision, then the receipt of the plates, ... . In fact, this event is arguably the most important event in Smith's life.
99.199.139.154 ( talk) 00:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
I realize that there are talk page archives but I think this needs to be revisited. Could someone summarize the arguments for "founding a movement" vs. "founding a movement"? I have a specific problem with crediting Smith with founding the movement when he founded(and incorporated) a specific church. After his death several disagreements about who should be the next president caused different branches to spring up but that is not the result of any effort on Smiths part (that I am aware of). Padillah ( talk) 14:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Sniper: mention about founding a church is in the lede: last sentence of first paragraph. The discussion, then, is whether it is POV to say that JSJr "founded a movement". As I've stated before, I have no strong opinions. While he didn't intend to found a "movement", the " Latter Day Saint movement" is a term which encompasses all denominations that originated with Smith, so its safe to say he founded it. ...comments? ~ B F izz 23:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree with StormRider, it's imprecise. Joseph Smith initiated a religion. It seems quite clear to me, from the stories and discussion regarding his first prayer, that he was searching for a singular means of worshiping Heavenly Father. His whole point, in the beginning , was to cut through the layers of different churches that had already been established and find the "one true church". That I know of, he was not prying for the One True Movement. Joseph Smith Jr. founded the one true church. He did not set out to establish several splinter religions that follow some of the same precepts. I guess I'm thinking more about his active role, he had an active role in establishing the Church of Christ. He did not have an active role in splintering that church into several separate entities. Padillah ( talk) 12:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
John Foxe, I'm getting an "us vs. them" feel from the phrasing of your comment. "If all you Mormons and former Mormons..."? I'm not trying to pick a fight. In fact I kind of like the idea of "...founder of the Latter-Day Saint religion". The part I'm trying to get around is, from everything I know about the religion, Smith didn't want 7 to 12 splinter groups, he meant to establish a single religion. What happened to that religion after his death was secondary. Again, the example of the BAA, what it turned into is not the point, Walter Brown established the BAA, not the NBA. I give StormRiders idea a nod but I've got the same issue John Foxe has, "first prophet" gets messy when you start taking Abraham and Moses into account. What about Foxe's "Latter-Day Saint religion"? Padillah ( talk) 20:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I've read over this section (and plan to do so several more times this week). It seems to satisfy all good article critera as is, as I will detail now, though I see some potential (small) improvements. NOTE: this is not a formal Good article review. It is an informal consideration of the criteria, so that the article will be ready for a real review by June 2010.
If you have any comments (agree? disagree?) relating to this summary of the EY section's conformity to Good article criteria, then feel free to discuss it here. Comments regarding specific suggestions should go in a separate, corresponding talk page section. ...comments? ~ B F izz 20:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Feel free to propose tweaks to the section's prose here, alongside my suggestions. Listing a sentence here for tweaking does not mean that it absolutely must be changed, but rather, that it is something that we should consider improving, if possible. ...comments? ~ B F izz 20:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Since Foxe is apparently tired of the endless debate relating to minor lede tweaks, may I again open up discussion to the topic of trimming the article? I don't know what to cut out, but I know it can be done. The sections of Smith's life can be brought into more compact summary style, since they have main articles. Now that the "teachings" subsections are fleshed out, we might want to consider condensing them as well. I propose that by June 2010 we have this article ready for a Good Article nomination. ...comments? ~ B F izz 19:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Maybe there's one low hanging fruit. I know I probably introduced the section, but on seeing its implementation, I don't really see much value to the "monuments and memorials" section. If someone wants to start a "list" article, we could link to it from the "see also" section, or just link the two notable memorials directly, but I don't think there's enough interesting material for an entire section. COGDEN 23:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
There are 6 subsections on Smith's life, and 6 subsections on his teachings. There are also about 6 weeks until June. I, for one, will (informally) review 2 sections per week (and review the others when I have extra time) according to the Good article criteria, and will especially look for ways to condense the prose. Some sections, I admit, will be un-condensable, and may in fact need to be expanded. But I'm going to try and get this article ready for a good article nomination by June, and I invite you all to do the same. ...comments? ~ B F izz 05:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Everything I've ever read (including the Wikipedia article on the plates) says Smith was told where they were but refused access to them for a time. I've never read a first vision story that had the angel bestow the plates on Smith. Shouldn't the correct phrase be he was directed to the plates? Padillah ( talk) 17:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Feel free to add to this section regarding ref cleanup. So far I've only identified one item for cleanup. This reference is used once in the EY section, and once in the following. It is a reference to History of the Church, and appears to be redundant with the later publications of "History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" listed under the name Roberts, B. H. The latter publications appear to be unused by our inline references. This redundancy should be resolved somehow. Ideas? ...comments? ~ B F izz 20:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to challenge Dennis Michael Quinn on charges of being a biased source and not valid for information. If that's not possible, could we state that "It is believed by some that Joseph Smith Jr. practiced folk magic" because it's a matter of opinion as to whether or not he practiced magic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snackwars ( talk • contribs) 03:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you Foxe. Now the quote establishes the following points:
Now my issue? It seems to mention Smith himself had the connection to folk magic but this seems to be narrative than stating more direct fact. Plus it does not say he practiced it with his family, or perhaps even undertook it at all. A self made conclusion presuming "the Smith family did" because "the region did" seems to be at the bottom of this and seems quite tedious. So, could it possible you provide some more text for you to back up this point? As the text in the article does seem to be synthesised from what the text actually says. I'd like as a result, the article to mention more of folk magic being a regional tenure at the time in the "burned over district". But if you can't back it up I recommend we get rid of the "Smith with his family practiced folk magic" statement. Routerone ( talk) 21:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
The Smiths were as susceptible as their neighbors to treasure-seeking folklore. In addition to rod and stone divining, the Smith probably believed in the rudimentary astrology found in the ubiquitous almanacs. Magical parchments handed down in the Hyrum Smith family may have originally belonged to Joseph Sr. (50)...Joseph Jr. never repudiated the stones or denied their power to find treasure. Remnants of the magical culture stayed with him to the end.(51)
By the way, sorry for not "signing" my statement, I new at this sort of thing. The issue I have with stating that Joseph Smith Jr. did practice magic is that it seems to contradict Wikipedia's claim of neutrality because the claim is one from a critical standpoint. As far as I'm concerned, anyone could've written an article or a book and then be used as a source--therefore whatever source is used, there ought to be a fair description of Joseph Smith Jr. in order to be "unbiased". Of course, I don't know how you talk about "folk magic" without taking one side or the other. If it is true that Joseph Smith Jr. did use items such as seer stones--it is quite difficult to call it magic if there are some who claim it is a form of priesthood. Doesn't this reveal a little prejudice? For some, this is the power given from God Thus, I find it difficult to claim that the use of seer stones or other such items constitutes "folk magic". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snackwars ( talk • contribs) 03:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I understand what you're saying and you may have a good point but I still disagree with the "apologetic view", in my mind it's simply a falsehood that has been circulated so much that it's considered a "fact". As far as I understand, we don't have any reliable primary sources to support this view--only some scholars who claim that Joseph Smith Jr. was a magician. However, we do have primary sources--such the Joseph Smith--History that state that rumors were spreading about him and there's nothing mentioned about him "locating treasures" for financial gain or practicing "folk magic." Why are these sources not considered? It states the facts from an LDS view, but because a popular idea prevails among scholars, we just silence the LDS view. There are sources--not just claims--that I have. In my mind, we should have the facts but not just rumors that have circulated into so-called "fact" that can't be backed up by a reliable primary source. I'm saying that the sources are biased and that they deserve to be challenged. I would say that an LDS source is much more legitimate in speaking about the LDS Church as opposed to an "outsider".
Snackwars (
talk) 14:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Snackwars (
talk •
contribs)
14:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
In reading over this entire discussion, I am amazed at the lack of credulity that is shown. The Bushman quote was cited thusly:Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page). "The Smiths were as susceptible as their neighbors to treasure-seeking folklore. In addition to rod and stone divining, the Smith probably believed in the rudimentary astrology found in the ubiquitous almanacs." Words such as "susceptible" and "probably" do NOT indicate FACTS, they indicate OPINION - and THAT is a FACT. Therefore, I hold that Bushman cannot be used as a reliable source of FACT on this topic. Bushman's own words show that he is stating opinion, not fact. If you have other sources (as you indicate) which you can quote that will support the premise of this topic, please do so. Otherwise, please remove this opinion from this article as it is my understanding that Wikipedia articles are supposed to be based on, and supported with, sources of fact, not opinion.
Mcsand6 (
talk)
05:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Then please quote for me wherein he states 100% certainty on the issue of folk magic as the words "susceptible" and "probably" that were quoted don't indicate either certainty or fact. Can you also list for me the other sources you are referring to regarding the "complete consensus in the field."? And, I don't believe that seer stones are "folk magic" any more than I believe that the vision and prophecies in the Old and New Testament are "folk magic". Thus, if the only sources you have are regarding seer stones, you are not dealing with fact, but rather one person's belief that seer stones are folk magic over another person's belief that seer stones are of God. Mcsand6 ( talk) 05:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for providing some quotes for me. The one quote you did not reference is that of Lucy Mack Smith. You state that she "famously commented" on her family's use of magic but you did not quote the source of that statement. I own two copies of her own writings and do not find that quote anywhere in them. Would you please let me know the source of your quote? As far as my "beliefs" not being a legitimate objection to the definition of the Smith family's actions, I would say that when it comes to religious actions, such as a belief in seer stones, a person cannot simply redefine the actions as magic because they believe that they are. Religion is not science, it is spiritual and has to be defined in those terms, not in scientific or social terms. our comment about the "invisible man in the clouds" indicates your lack of religious belief and understanding, thus your opposition to my viewpoint. I don't see how a prophet of God's life can be discussed without a respect for religion and the impact it has in the lives a majority of the people in the United States. Yes, statistics show that the majority of citizens of the United States (to which this Wikipedia site is geared) ARE religious. Also, you ask me for evidence to dispute that the Smith family practiced magic. In the United States of America, one doesn't have prove one's innocence, others have to prove the guilt. Why do I need to provide evidence that the Smith family disputed ever having used magic? If they didn't use it, they wouldn't have ever talked about whether or not they used it. As for your quotes of scholars who attribute the use of magic to the Smith family, what are their sources? How do they know that they used magic. What proof do THEY have that what they are saying is true. Do they have eye-witness accounts? Or, are they just quoting the rhetoric and rumors of the day which continually flew at the members of the Smith family? Mcsand6 ( talk) 15:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I have done some further research on this subject and found that your "famous comment" attributed to Lucy Mack Smith was grossly misquoted. Here is her actual quote from her preliminary manuscript of "Biographical Sketches" p. 40, she told her reader NOT to think "that we stopt our labor and went at trying to win the faculty of Abrae drawing Magic circles or sooth saying to the neglect of all kinds of business." Also please note the following quote in the notes, written by Richard L. Bushman (H. Rodney Sharp Professor of History a the University of Dleaware), in his essay, "Joseph Smith's Family Background" (found in the book "The Prophet Joseph Smith, Essays on the Life and Mission of Joseph Smith", p. 18), "The evidence for Smith family involvement in treasure-seeking is presented in a controversial book by D. Michael Quinn, "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View" (Salt Lake City, Utah: Signature Books, 1987), pp. 1-52. Quinn argues that magical practices were consistent with religious faith in Joseph Smith's time. The book has been criticized for exaggerating the degree of Smith family involvement in magic and for making speculative leaps without sufficient confirming evidence. For another view of the Smith family and magic, see Bushman, "Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism", pp. 69-76." This essay, itself, also gives a very clear description of the Smith family activities that have been classified by others as practicing magic. Mcsand6 ( talk) 16:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Actually, her quote seems very straightforward to me, she doesn't want her neighbors to think that they stopped work in order to win the faculty of Abrae, draw magic circles, or to soothsay at the neglect of their business. You are twisting her words to say what you want them to say to support your beliefs. Just read the quote the way it was written and not twist it. Mcsand6 ( talk) 16:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
So, I think that you and I ought to agree to disagree. Mcsand6 ( talk) 18:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
(new indent) I prefer folk magic because the term magic is so broad and encompasses such a diverse set of beliefs. Folk magic was very common during this era allowing the common citizen to see no conflict between their Christian beliefs and using a divining rod to find their well. This really is an interesting topic. I know people in the panhandle of Florida who still use a divining rod. Others will still seek them out to properly locate their well before using a professional to dig for it. These people are not pagans, but just simple Protestants who use a rod to find water. -- Storm Rider 21:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I've squeezed a piped link to First Vision in the fourth paragraph of the intro. What do you think? Its a few words longer, but more strongly suggests Smith's revered status among followers. ...comments? ~ B F izz 07:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Once again, I am finding a lack of fact in the above statements. As a response to COGDEN, let me point out the errors in your last entry. First, where do you get the information that the " vision had become an important element of the story he told in his own mind about his prophethood, but there is no evidence he thought that the vision was as important as the modern LDS Church and the Community of Christ now consider it to be."? Joseph Smith, Jr. was persecuted from the moment he first told a local preacher about the vision until his murder over two decades later. Joseph Smith, Jr. spoke of his vision in the Sacred Grove to many, many people, as it was the beginning of God's renewed revelation to man about His Gospel and His Church which had been lost through a falling away after Christ's apostles were killed. It was NOT simple a personal conversion. It was a commandment he received from God, Himself, to not join any of the Churches on the earth at the time of Joseph's prayer as none of them had the fulness of Christ's Gospel, followed later by other angelic visits, directing him as to how to restore the fulness of Christ's Gospel. Second, while Joseph Smith, Jr.'s vision wasn't officially published before 1842, he did write about it several times in documents and letters. Third, Joseph Smith, Jr. NEVER spoke of the Priesthood being restored through Elijah. The Aaronic (or Levitical) Priesthood was restored through John the Baptist and the Melchizedek Priesthood was restored through Christ's Apostles, Peter, James, and John. Elijah revealed the Priesthood by restoring the blessings of the ordinances of the Temple, which include Baptism for the Dead and the sealing of a husband and wife together for Eternity, thus fulfilling the promise made in Malachi 4:5,6 which states "Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord: And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse." See Doctrine and Covenants Section 2:1-3, Section 27:9, Section 110:13-16, Section 128:16-18, all written by Joseph Smith, Jr. and published as canonized scripture. So, before you diminish the importance of Joseph Smith, Jr.'s First Vision, please discover for yourself the historical facts of its importance, as well as other historical facts related to Joseph Smith, Jr. Mcsand6 ( talk) 05:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
What you are saying is that first-person testimony has no veracity. Wow! I thought that in a court of law, it was third-person testimony which has no veracity as it is considered heresay. How convenient to simply dismiss that something occurred because the person who experienced it said it occurred. If you would like witnesses to corroborate his testimony, please read "Confirming Witnesses of the First Vision" by Milton V. Backman, Jr. You can find it at lds.org by reading the article in the Jan. 1986 Ensign, pp. 32-37. There, you will find many witnesses. Please don't tell me that this article makes no difference because it was published by members of the Church that Joseph Smith, Jr., himself, restored. When factual information about the Catholic Church is written, the authors don't dismiss information from the Catholic Church itself, they actually go to the SOURCE for that information, namely the Church being written about. Just to quote a few for you, in case you don't want to go to lds.org, here are some quotes from the article. The first is about Orson Pratt's witness: Orson Pratt "published a pamphlet now entitled REMARKABLE VISIONS.” 3 This missionary pamphlet was published in the fall of 1840 and contained the first account of the First Vision to appear in print. 4 It included a description of Joseph Smith’s early visions, from his initial theophany near Palmyra to the early appearances of Moroni and his experience with the three witnesses to the Book of Mormon. Elder Pratt reprinted the work twice in 1841 and again in 1842 (called the third American edition). In the American editions, it was enlarged to include an account of the restoration of the priesthood. A comparison of the pamphlet with Joseph Smith’s historical writings reveals that most major concepts included in the Prophet’s histories (especially the 1838 account) were included in Elder Pratt’s work. Since there are no direct quotations in the Pratt pamphlet, and since the literary style is very different from Joseph’s pre-1840 writings, Orson Pratt undoubtedly based his history on what he had learned from the teachings rather than the writings of Joseph."(Backman) To quote from the pamphlet itself (with the dates of the three separate publications in ()), "“And he was enrapped in a heavenly vision, and saw two glorious personages (1838, 1842) who exactly resembled each other in their features or likeness (1842). He was informed, that his sins were forgiven (1832). He was also informed upon the subjects, which had for some time previously agitated his mind, viz.—that all the religious denominations were believing in incorrect doctrines (1832, 1838, 1842); and, consequently that none of them was acknowledge of God, as his church and kingdom (1832). And he was expressly commanded, to go not after them (1838); and he received a promise that the true doctrine—the fulness of the gospel, should, at some future time, be made known to him (1842); after which, the vision withdrew, leaving his mind in a state of calmness and peace, indescribable(1832).” Orson Hyde became another witness when "in August 1842, he published a missionary pamphlet in Frankfurt, Germany, entitled, A Cry From the Wilderness, A Voice From the Dust of the Earth. 10 In his Cry from the Wilderness, Elder Hyde described Joseph’s search for truth, his introduction to James’s admonition on prayer, his prayer in the woods near his father’s house, the presence of the adversary, and the appearance of light following the darkness. While describing Joseph’s vision, Elder Hyde wrote that Joseph saw two glorious personages who resembled each other in stature and likeness. They informed him that he should not join any religious party, for they had all erred concerning doctrine, and that none of them was considered by God to be his church and kingdom. He was directed to wait until a later date when the true doctrine of Christ and the fulness of the gospel would be revealed to him. After the vision closed, Elder Hyde concluded, Joseph’s soul was filled with peace and calmness." (Backman) "John Taylor not only declared that he personally learned from Joseph Smith the basic truths unfolded during the First Vision, but proclaimed that Joseph Smith’s 1838 history discussing events preceding the organization of the Church was accurate." (Backman) Mcsand6 ( talk) 16:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Your statements regarding speculation are very interesting since all of the above comments and quotes I have read in this discussion seem to be based on speculation. You say that we can use first-hand witnesses, yet it's been discussed above that we can't rely on Joseph's first-hand witness of his vision as he is the only witness. I know that witnesses are subject to their character, so would you like character witnesses for the witnesses I cited in my above entry? I haven't seen, read, or heard of any character assassinations on Orson Pratt, Orson Hyde, or John Taylor. Do you have any evidence of such? Also, I'm not proselytizing, I am simply quoting witnesses to refute that Joseph Smith, Jr. didn't see what he said he saw. I don't apologize that the men of that day used religious terms to describe a religious experience, thus it shows up when I quote them. I'm not trying to proselytize you, just help you understand the facts of the experience which was talked about and written about by many people during the course of Joseph Smith, Jr.'s life who left written records of the evidence. Remember that physical evidence and empirical proof have never been the highest source of authority in religious matters, and Joseph Smith Jr.'s experience was a religious matter. In fact, physical evidence and empirical proof are low on the totem pole in relation to how the truth speaks to one's heart. Besides, how would a person who has an experience like Joseph Smith, Jr.'s vision, provide physical evidence and empirical proof of that experience? Mcsand6 (talk) 17:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
So one of the reasons that Wikipedia prefers secondary sources over primary sources is that the primary sources are so close the event. For instance, if the founder of a company writes a history of the company, they are doing a few things. First, there's a degree of revisionism- looking back and remembering things as you'd like them to be. Second, events that put the company in a poor light will be glossed over, spun, or completely ignored. This can happen if a personal critic of the company writes about it- small events will be magnified if they have an axe to grind.
So, that's the reason that secondary sources are giving extra weight on Wikipedia. Since you are new, let us know if you have questions about the policies. I'd suggest starting at Wikipedia's 5 pillars. Cheers, tedder ( talk) 18:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I disagree with your statement that "only a handful of Mormons, at most, knew about the First Vision". The quotes I stated from 3 contemporaries of Joseph Smith, Jr. indicate otherwise. I can quote journal entries of people, including my ancestors, who wrote about the First Vision. It was not a light experience in that it totally changed the concept of the nature of God that was prevalent at the time, as well as re-opening a communication between God and His prophets that had been closed for a long time. The nature of God that was revealed through Joseph's experience was a major topic of discussion from the early beginnings of the Church. I refer you back to the article in the 1986 Ensign for more quotes regarding that fact. As for Wikipedia's policies, I admit that I haven't read them and that I am a "newbie", however, I do know what establishes fact and what it only opinion. I find it ironic that everyone keeps changing their reasons for discounting my explanations from it not being from a reliable witness to it not being reliable because it's from a primary source. If that is the case, does that mean that we cannot quote Abraham Lincoln's speeches or writings to establish facts about his life, his campaigns, and his Presidency? Mcsand6 ( talk) 19:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I feel that the level of detail regarding (1) treasure hunting and (2) the angel Moroni/golden plates can be condensed. Those are the main topics of the section, so condensing of each should be roughly proportional, lest we fail at WP:UNDUE. This is trickier and I'll have to think a bit longer before I choose examples and make specific proposals, though I welcome yours. ...comments? ~ B F izz 20:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I was trying to be Bold and have put in for a request for Indefinite semi-protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, for anyone who wants to chime in. I constantly see reverts made due to vandalism. My resoning is that a very quick review of the edit history shows that in the last two months this article has been vandalized 16 times. All 16 of these were from anonymous (IP addresses) or non-autoconfirmed users. In the last 2000 edits the words "revert vandalism" was listed in the edit summary 84 times. This shows a clear pattern of “heavy sustained vandalism”, the given reason why a page should be Semi-protected, per WP:SILVERLOCK. A perfect example as why this page needs indefinite semi-protection is given at WP:NO-PREEMPT. It says “Semi-protection is used for articles, such as Jesus, that have a pattern of heavy sustained vandalism.” Not that I am trying to compare Joseph Smith to Jesus, I am only comparing there Wikipages. The Jesus page it about a religious figure, who some find controversial, whose page is heavily vandalized. This is a perfect example of the Joseph Smith page, a controversial religious figure whose page is heavily vandalized. This page need to be protected against anonymous and non-autoconfirmed users.-- ARTEST4ECHO talk 14:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Based on the news in the media about Wikipedia (being charged with posting child pornography) I couldn't not comment. I have been saying all along the problem in this article, as with Wikipedia in general, is the lack of substantial oversight. Because Wikimedia/Wikipedia exist not to answer to readership but to contributors, there appear some odd group dynamics which allow for extremist groups and perspectives to be maintained. It is exactly this problem which has likely led this article to be so negative and disrespectful in tone. I have recently visited the site on Jehovah's Witnesses (much greater sensitivity) and the site on Masons (maintained primarily by active Masons who are not accused of their POV). I had anticipated a similar anti group dynamic, but it wasn't there. It seems that this one is being "protected" by a more volatile group dynamic. As I asked Tedder, find me a more insensitive article and I'll go there to contribute. He still hasn't come up with one. Now I'm glad not to contribute and be supporting an organization involved with filth. Perhaps the rest of you might consider your participation in Wikipedia until they have restored their dignity, if that will even be possible.
Canadiandy1 ( talk) 14:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
The List of monuments and memorials of Joseph Smith, Jr. was proposed for deletion, with a consensus to merge it back into this article. I've temporarily userfied the content, so we need not rush to include it. Just something to be aware of. ...comments? ~ B F izz 21:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I've added a new "impact" subsection in the "legacy" section. I think this was missing from the article. It covers what Smith "means" to those that came after him. Any comments? COGDEN 04:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
A while ago I stated that I intended to review each section of this article, in preparation for a GA nomination on June 1. However, that pesky Real Life (tm) distracted me from this goal and I've been letting it slide. Rather than attempt to conduct the in-depth review that I intended, I'll simply lean on Finetooth's fantastic peer review of the article. He makes several sound suggestions; I'm not entirely sure if anyone has taken action on them. In any event, I take heart in Finetooth's statement: "I think this article is not far from being ready for FAC".
One thing that should probably wait until later is the matter of notes. Finetooth mentions that our note system could be improved to be more like the article Voyage of the Karluk. I agree that we should gut and revamp our notes system for a cleaner presentation, but it's something that I, for one, am going to leave for later.
I plan to take this week to assure that most of Finetooth's other suggestions are enacted, and will nominate the article for GA status next week. I would much appreciate any help you wish to offer (and do appreciate the hard work that many of you, especially John Foxe and COgden, have put into this article). ...comments? ~ B F izz 03:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
The subsections of the 'Distinctive views and teachings' section do a good job of illustrating each particular point. However, I feel that we should also include a summary paragraph for the section that touches on the bigger picture, like the first and last paragraphs of the lede of Teachings of Joseph Smith, Jr. What do you (all) think? ...comments? ~ B F izz 05:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Finetooth noted that we don't have a source for the paragraph in the Teachings section that starts with "Smith strongly favored U.S. constitutional rights". COgden, have you got anything for this? ...comments? ~ B F izz 05:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I've gone through and given all of the images alt text (prompted by Finetooth's suggestion). Review the diffs at your leisure and make sure they conform with your understanding of WP:ALT. Thanks. ...comments? ~ B F izz 22:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I started an exercise to find out about the neutrality of this article, or lack thereof. I went through about the first 74 references and notes. In my reckoning, there were 17 positive statements referenced or noted, 30 neutral, and 27 negative ones. This is evidence to me that the article, particularly the part I went through, is not NPOV. I read a lot more than that, and what I read has a negative tone. There are plenty of people, like me, that believe that Joseph Smith was a man of good character and a prophet of God. That is not adequately represented in contrast to the people who believe he was a fraud and not a good man. I wish people would not publish lies and focus on the negative aspects of Joseph Smith's life to put him in a bad light. -- 96.31.118.209 ( talk) 04:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to put this article up at WP:Good article nominations tomorrow, if no one has any objections. I invite you to wrap up any major tweaking by that time. If there is a significant chunk of work you would like to do before the nomination, just let me know and we can postpone the nomination a few days. ...comments? ~ B F izz 22:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
There are a number of references that are never actually cited in the article. I think we should delete these. For example, we never cite Andrus (1973), Bennett (1842), Berge (1985), etc. In some cases, a reference is cited only once, like Booth (1831). In such cases, I think we might want to consider moving the citation to the single footnote where they are referenced. My view is that the "References" section should contain only sources that are cited multiple times in the article. We also ought to make sure everything we cite in the footnotes is either cited in full in the footnote or included in the "References" section. COGDEN 00:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
: Unknown parameter |publication-year=
ignored (
help).{{
citation}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link).{{
citation}}
: More than one of |author=
and |last1=
specified (
help).{{
citation}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link), copied to Smith, Joseph, Jr.; Mulholland, James; Thompson, Robert B.;
Phelps, William W.;
Richards, Willard (1839–1843),
"History of the Church, Ms. A–1", in
Jessee, Dean C (ed.), Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book (published 2002),
ISBN
1-57345-787-6{{
citation}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link).Criteria 3 (b) of the Good article criteria is: "it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)." Is there a general article about Joseph Smith, Jr that the general reader could read that does not have so much detail as this one does? Regards, Xtzou ( Talk) 19:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I've made a few changes to the wikilinks in the lede to make them more closely conform to WP policy as I understand it (and to my own preference). Does anyone oppose to saying in the lede "he founded the Church of Christ" as opposed to "he founded a church"? ...comments? ~ B F izz 05:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Don't know if this has been discussed before as I am new to the article. On a quick read I failed to see it mentioned in the article, or in the Talk archives. Smith was convicted in Bainbridge in 1826, (also referenced in the book No Man Knows by History by Fawn M. Brodie)
STATE OF NEW YORK v. JOSEPH SMITH. Warrant issued upon written complaint upon oath of Peter G. Bridgeman, who informed that one Joseph Smith of Bainbridge was a disorderly person and an imposter. Prisoner brought before Court March 20, 1826...
Shouldn't this be mentioned? Or am I missing something? -- Alexf (talk) 20:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I've just made, [2]. Please ignore the other two edits prior to that, they were in error and I reverted in such.
Firstly, I removed the part about Oliver Cowdery's profession, because as stated above in the GA points we do have the problem of excessive detail. Stating he was a "teacher and a dowser" in my opinion, exists simply as a piece of irrelevant spin to tune in the article in and emphasise opinion + doubt about his character and Joseph Smith's claims. We dont need nor want this type of thing in the article, so I removed it. Because all that should be stated is "Joseph Smith met Oliver Cowdery and began re-translating". That is th established fact, and adding anything on to that is simply spinning it to generate an impression.
Secondly, I got shot of this. "to ensure that the lost pages could not later be found and compared to the re-translation.". If anything, that again is excessive detail. But my most critical point is, it's synthesis and at worst original research. How? as the fact is stated, and then whoever wrote this seems to have added it in as a self drawn opinion and conclusion from the information stated source. There is no direct evidence to the statement I removed here other than individualistic judgement rendered by self opinion and viewpoint. Hence, the fact is stated on the opinion via a viewpoint, it is incompatible with the article. If this is to be a GA (and I will not oppose the cause on bitterness, which I made the mistake of above; rather I'd be more willing to work on it as long as the article merits it), this kind of unnecessary self drawn commentary ought to be avoided, and believe me the article is rife with it. Routerone ( talk) 16:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
(ec) I tend to agree with the removal of Cowdry's background information. I'm not sure how Cowdry's background is worth having on a page about Smith. It certainly belongs on Cowdry's page, and perhaps on Origin of the Book of Mormon, but not on an introductory page about Smith. tedder ( talk) 18:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I got to read on a website that has his ancestry genealogy on there that had emperor constantine the great, viking and danish kings as ancestors. Is that all true? Its a website about the smith family that you can find on a link on Joseph Smith, Sr.'s website. Please answer me and thank you.- Jana —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.54.66.213 ( talk) 21:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
"Smith said he attempted to remove the plates the next morning but was unsuccessful because the angel struck him down with supernatural force."
Where is this info coming from "struck down" and "with force". Oh, and the words "mystical" and/or "magical" are quite the touch for describing what was very firmly described personally by Joseph as "Sacred" and "Holy". Quite a play on words we get from the writers on here. Obviously the quoted text we are currently getting from this Wikipedia article is not from the personal account of Joseph Smith, Jr. because he never said anything such things. Only the Church which he started contains his original writings and manuscripts and the original writings and manuscript of those people who worked alongside the man. That means that all other outsider historians cannot quote Joseph correctly unless they refer to the publications of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. One cannot say there are any other believable sources for his words as former members that were unrepentant sinners who were excommunicated obviously had a hard biases against the prophet, and viciously attacked with their words. These cannot be believable accounts in historical record. As far as what splinter group churches currently may say...I'm not sure but I think all these churches together make up like less than 1% in Church membership as compared to the said Church. So they are not believable themeselves. Oh, and back then at the time by far the majority of the General Church Authorities stayed with the Church mentioned when it came time to decide after Joseph's death. So back to the original question, who else was there to eyewitness the event?? Nobody else. So this account must be coming from someone who wrote the hearsay of local folk or even more distant unbelievable witnesses. There was only one eye witness in that scene and it was Joseph himself. Period. Therefore no other account can be trusted. Would this not be a fair assessment? How would you like it if you wrote your own account of a lone personal experience that changed your life and then everyone started making up their own versions of what they think probably happened? That would be a source of invalid historical accounts and that is what makes up a good portion of the entire Wikipedia Joseph Smith, Jr. article. This is also why many church members shun this site. Basically it comes down to a fight, so since this article concerns the teachings of Jesus Christ it behooves us to not fight about it (contention is not of God). If you want the finest scholarly source that can be found on the subject look up "The Joseph Smith Papers." It is a relatively new project that is coming out in annual installments that will eventually comprise 30 volumes. It contains the photo copies of the original Joseph Smith's personal journal entries, correspondance, discourses and written histories, and legal and business documents written in his own hand or by the hands of those working alongside him.
There isn't a publication about this subject on this planet that is as scholarly as this one. I mean honestly, rumors written taken to be as historical fact??? Just because someone claims to be an authority, though they be from the same time does not make them so. Just because someone says they are an eyewitness does not mean they were. We have to learn to read inbetween the lines sometimes. Look at the statements from Joseph Smith, Jr. himself and then look at the garbage that is written about him and ask yourself if the two sides match. They do not. The character portrayed by these so called historical eye witnesses of the time do not at all match up with what the man said and what he taught. Only those who take enough care and time to search out and study these things know this. Otherwise it is just outside haters that throw up an off-hand at the man and trust unnofficial sources that claim scholarly research and work. What a diservice to Wikipedia. The only way you can get to know about Joseph Smith Jr and what he believed is by reading his own account and the account of those who worked along side him for substantial amounts of time. And such information is *not* located on Wikipedia.org currently.-- steve200255 ( talk) 20:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Just get rid of "supernatural." That will probably shut steve up and won't disappoint 129.82.88.48 too badly. -- 63.226.104.225 ( talk) 16:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Done! Removed "supernatural" from the sentence in question. --
CABEGOD
00:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Padillah and Steve. I am prepared to be BOLD but want to discuss first. Yes Padillah, I suggest a change. That change is a revert to August 29, 2003. As to John Foxe's statement he is the only non-member contributing, that is because he and COgden seem to be the only two who don't have their edits reverted. Si if I have Padillah, Steve, and Routerone on side for a do over (revert to august 29, 2003) lets put it to vote. If you follow Foxe's argument that this would be turned into a "Faith-Promoting" article, please go to the revert and ask if it reads as unfairly biased. Then come back here and ask if this sounds biased. Then make your call. BE BOLD!
Who agrees with an August 29 2003 revert,
Canadiandy: Yes.
173.180.110.164 ( talk) 14:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
I agree, BFizz. The Aug 30 article is just fine too. It even includes a reference and link to Brodie for those wanting that perspective. I do understand your concern regarding the article 'approaching' Good Article status, but I think the very reason it isn't (and very likely won't) is because of exactly what has changed, 1. It is much longer. 2 As it stands it is highly inflammatory and negatively cynical (as opposed to neutral) of Joseph Smith. Please reconsider, I know it would be a huge leap, but we can't kid ourselves that this article has become incredibly messy and reads more like an expose'.
Thanks for responding with respect and serious consideration.
So let's repose the question,
Who votes to revert to August 30, 2003?
I vote yes.
173.180.110.164 ( talk) 01:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy