![]() | 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 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | → | Archive 20 |
Thank you Cabe, that's a small start. I'll go over just a few of the other erroneous statements in the article...as an example of what I'm talking about concerning the overall poor quality of the article:
"With his family, he took part in religious folk magic". Hmm, I don't see that written anywhere in Church literature. Sounds like a fabrication to me. What's more the link of "religious folk magic" just points to a WP article about "Folk religion" which makes no mention of the word "magic". As Rider mentions above "magic" is commonly seen as close to or the same thing as sorcerery. The Holy Bible's New Testament denounces sorcerers and sorcereries to be of Satan. Seems as though this Bushman author is not so neutral after all...
another bad sentence: "both his parents and his maternal grandfather had *mystical* visions...". Yea, this is another play on words. The word "mystical" in most societies is held in close proximity to those who practice magic and those who will read your palm and tell you your future for money. It is just an innapropriate word that is used in a calculated way to discredit what they said was their personal revelations from God. Once again, this description is absent from Church manuscripts and personal journals of the members of the Church.
Anonymous poster, I'm sorry I don't know what you're referring to when you say "He conned the gullible into believing he could find buried treasure, swore he could see letters on gold plates by looking at a stone in his hat, and lied repeatedly to his wife about his additional "wives," a couple of whom were fourteen." Those must have all been made-up by someone's imagination. I don't find those statements anywhere. He did translate the plates by way of what are called the "Urim and Thummim" which he said were prepared by the hand of the Lord for this purpose. But he didn't say the stones were in any hat, and he never used them to try to find "treasure". The plates already had characters on them but it was in a language nobody there could read. The plural marriage thing is true, and by Joseph's own account 'the commandment by God to practice it was one of the most unwanted and difficult things he ever had to do.' He said this was in fullfillment of the prophecy by ancient prophets that "in the last days there shall be a restoration of all things". This would include what Mormons believe the Lord commanded ancient prophets to do for His own purposes which it is speculated that it was to multiply the righteous people in the earth, especially when war killed off many men. In any account the message from Joseph on the subject is very clear: it was a grievous and sore trial/test that many did not make it through. In my opinion it put undue tensions on his personal marriage at a time when all a normal men would have wanted in such a scene of mob violence, hatred, tensions, and responsibility for the well-being of thousands of people would have been to escape or to have peace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve200255 ( talk • contribs) 05:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your thoughts, but I'm not expressing hate just educated reason, no, not including the apocrypha, those books would be the 1-3rd century equivalent of a Billy Graham book at best and Da Vinci Code at worst. Educated research has pretty much cemented that those books have questionable authorship, which removed the books from the discussion early on. There has been serious and educated thought and research put into the accuracy and preserves the books that are "god breathed" and which are not, we have documented evidence from the early christians stating that the rule of thumb was books and letters from the apostles and close companions, we know that Peter read Paul's letters as copied by recipient churches and he supported Pauls teaching, the Bible encourages intellectual scrutiny of the scriptures to identify false teachings and false prophets as they will arise. The old testament we use today consists of all the same contents as Josephus recorded. There are just no grounds for what Joseph Smith claims in the realm of Christianity, Christ himself stated he was here to make a new covenant, reason states that if he was divine as he claims, that it would make no sense to come but hide all the real truths till 1800 yrs later. Non-mormon research just doesn't show how or where this Great Apostasy could have occured. Please study 1-3rd century christianity to learn of the individuals and their motives and methods to have a better understanding of the point of view. Ezra Taft Benson stated that Mormonism would never be for those who cared about manuscript evidence or for the intellectual or the rich. Just as there are plenty of good hearted Mormons who really believe in Smith, there are many others who have done honest research in the bible, nothing to do with anti-mormon stuff, and don't believe that the God of the Bible would create a secret message on gold plates hundreds of years after Jesus and then take them away so noone can see the evidence. Jesus showed Thomas the holes in his hands because his own apostle doubted, the current nonexistance of the plates from which the Book of Mormon came from just isn't characteristic of the God described in the Bible. -- Alan355 ( talk) 18:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Padillah, thank you for your thoughts, but please don't mistake brevity for ignorance, without a signed photo stapled to the front of an original MS all authorship is somewhat questionable. This doesn't change the fact that there are 27 books in common with minimal MS variants and universal acceptance. I was referring to the impressions of the 1-3rd century christains opinions concerning the origin of said NT, 20 of which had documented universal acceptance by the mid 2nd century. Reference scholar Dr. Kurt Aland, and mormon scholar Richard Lloyd Anderson, and Joel Groat among others. As to the rest of my statement it was an explanation and I apologize, I will keep all further posts regarding this article.-- Alan355 ( talk) 21:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Read here some of what the official "Church History" says that Joseph Smith Jr. said about his own experiences. It contrasts heavily with what Quinn and Bushmen and other sources used here say:
Joseph Smith History (extracts from the history of Joseph Smith, The Prophet. History of the Church, Vol. 1, Chapters 1-5)
Can be found online here: http://scriptures.lds.org/js_h/1
Corrections to the Wikipedia article both in wording and in substance:
Concerning the obtaining of the record written on gold plates and the seer stones. These are key sentences and phrases applicable to this discussion throughout the reference. After Joseph was visited and ministered to by a messenger (who called himself Moroni sent down from the presence of the Lord, and who was the same being who had sealed up the said record during his own mortal life and buried it for protection from the apostacized and the other wicked) about the whole night he felt exhausted and had little strength left to go about his daily chores. From this setup we read: Joseph Smith History 1:48-54 " I shortly after arose from my bed, and as usual, went to the necessary labors of the day; but, in attempting to work as at other times, I found my strength so exhausted as to render me entirely unable. My father, who was laboring along with me, discovered something to be wrong with me, and told me to go home. I started with the intention of going to the house; but, in attempting to cross the fence out of the field where we were, my strength entirely failed me, and I fell helpless on the ground, and for a time was quite unconscious of anything. The first thing that I can recollect was a voice speaking unto me, calling me by name. I looked up, and beheld the same messenger standing over my head, surrounded by light as before. He then again related unto me all that he had related to me the previous night, and commanded me to go to my father and tell him of the vision and commandments which I had received. I obeyed..."
and then we read "convenient to the village of manchester, Ontario country, New York, stands a hill of considerable size, and the most elevated of any in the neighborhood. On the west side of thie hill, not far from the top, under a stone of considerable size, lay the plates, deposited in a stone box..." "...having removed the earth, I obtained a lever, which I got fixed under the edge of the stone, and with a little exertion raised it up. I looked in, and there indeed did I behold the plates, the Urim and Thummim, and the breasplate, as stated by the messenger. The box in which they lay was formed by laying stones together in some kind of cement. In the bottom of the box were laid two stones crossways of the box, and on these stones lay the plates and the other things with them."
Then "I made an attempt to take them out, but was forbidden by the messenger, and was again informed that the time for brigning them forth had not yet arrived, neither would it, until four years from that time; but he told me that I should come to that place precisely in one year from that time, and that he would there meet with me, and that I should continue to do so until the time should come for obtaining the plates. Accordingly, as I had been commanded, I went at the end of each year, and at each time I found the same messenger there, and received instruction and intelligence from him at each of our interviews, respecting what the Lord was going to do, and how and in what manner his kingdom was to be conducted in the last days."
Do you see any contradictions in either tone or in fact regarding what these authors said and what you read here? Joseph said 'I was forbidden to take out the plates'. This is very different from the violent imagery 'struck down with force'. I ask that this be corrected in the article.
In other parts of "Joseph Smith--History" it says that under difficult financial times he became employed by a man who mined silver. This is in stark contrast to "treasure-digging". I wonder what that means anyway...treasure-digging. Does Quinn think Joseph was trying to find a pirate's buried treasure? Hahaha, wow I don't know who could believe anything Quinn says just from reading that statement alone. Obviously the object in mind for the author Quinn is to get the reader to believe that Joseph Smith Jr. was some guy fascinated with and obsessive about finding treasure by way of digging, thereby introducing the idea that Joseph may have fabricated the whole Book of Mormon recorded on golden plates. Typical anti-mormon word play. I request that the article read what is recorded in the said reference that Joseph Smith became employed by a silver mining company, briefly, and that he did so only because there was no other employment available to him. That's what he said in his own journal.
I have issue with another word used in the article near the beginning "cosmology". This term is defined as the study of the universe. I don't think this is an appropriate term because the word is used in science and not in religion. In fact, the word makes a reader think of the word "astrology" which is connected with "mystical" and "metaphysical" and "magic" and "fortune telling" which, as mentioned is popularly associated with demonology. Again, a calculated word placed to get a reader to discredit the man. I ask that it be removed. Just one more proof of the slant of this article.
another bad phrase: "That summer, after the Nauvoo Expositor criticized his power and new doctrines, such as plural marriage, Smith and the Nauvoo city council ordered the destruction of the newspaper as a nuisance." This omits critical information, thereby leading a reader to believe Smith was a tyrannical ruler. I ask that a more correct and appropriate description of the scene substitute what is currently in the article with something from a source like this:
"...A posse had come for Joseph and Hyrum that morning warning that the governor had promised to garrison troops in Nauvoo until the brothers submitted to arrest. 6 The brethren were told that the people of Nauvoo feared what the troops might do. A discussion ensued. At its end, Hyrum said, “Let us go back and give ourselves up, and see the thing out. On the morning of Tuesday, June 25, events moved rapidly. Joseph and Hyrum, charged with riot for the June 10 destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor press, surrendered themselves to Constable Davis Bettisworth in Carthage despite being acquitted earlier on related charges. Nauvoo City Council members, feeling that the press threatened their lives and liberties by inciting mob violence against them, had ruled, within the rights they felt were granted by the Nauvoo Charter, that the newspaper was a public nuisance. As directed by the city council, the Prophet, acting as mayor, had then ordered the marshal to destroy the press. The whole countryside was in a state of confusion. Mormons feared and distrusted their enemies, and their enemies feared the power of the Mormons if provoked. Rumors bred rumors. Armed men practiced military drills everywhere. Day after day men crossed and recrossed the Mississippi River from Missouri as attacks upon Nauvoo were planned and canceled" ("Martyrdom at Carthage", Reed Blake, Ensign, June 1994)
As I have just proven this WP article is completely one-sided. Someone mentioned the value of a "fair and balanced" approach using all sides? I just proved this article is completely one-sided, and not in favor of what the historical figures wrote about themselves. I would have thought this should have raised a red flag to everyone. Glad I'm bringing it up now then.
Alanyst said that we should seek to reflect all viewpoints to give balance. Bfizz remarked that the article is not written from "a believing perspective". That's just the point, its entirely written from "a dis-believing perspective". All one-sided, calculated to discredit Joseph Smith Jr. as a person, as a prophet, and as a good man. Not only that, it seeks to do the same to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints. It's aim is to leave a bad taste in the reader's mouth about the prophet and the church. So you're going to have to insert my suggestions into the article to start to give the article a more balanced feel. Someone said that "Bushman can't be credibly called an anti-mormon". I beg to differ. I don't care what the man is called, his views and incorrect historical accounts are exactly in line with all anti-mormon literature. Bushman may be a Mormon himself, but all the biggest anti-mormons have been or think they still are. I have come across individuals who desperately wanted to join the church for the express reason of being in a position to have more clout to renounce the Church. That's how dedicated some anti-mormons are. Bushman is anything but neutral.
That's all for now, that's just a start. This lengthy post was all neccessary to shed some new light on the subject. I would like the requested actions to be taken though to give the article more balance from the opposing viewpoints. Steve200255 ( talk) 04:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Padillah you're absolutely right about the size of that post. I guess I thought the people on here lacked information and so I went overboard. Won't happen again. Also, I apologize if I offended or insulted anyone, but it seems that my people are the only ones being attacked here. Some here may claim that I'm talking from an opinionated standpoint but that in and of itself is a big claim to make. Is it not? Just because I believe in the doctrine doesn't alienate me from this discussion. Just because I have an opinion doesn't make my statements opinionated. I speak from a factual standpoint. If you want to say I'm talking in a biased way you're just going to have to give some examples. I'm talking about real history here. To claim that the Church is slanted has never been proven in any way. In theory, as you say, the Church has an incentive to slant towards itself with biased edited histories, but you have no way of proving that. I'm sorry, but you're making a huge blanket statement. You need to support that argument with facts. If you want to claim that no neutral or factual information about LDS church history can come from the LDS church or its members, that it's impossible then you're automatically plunging yourself into the literature of anti-mormon people. They dominate that market in hordes. They never call themselves anti-mormon, of course, just as you wouldn't call yourself anti-mormon. SOME of these people individualy might not hate the church but all their sources can only come from one of two places: The Church/members, or those who only heard bad stuff about the church from anti-mormon people. Back then, because of this, there weren't any neutral people. And, unfortunately they are the only sources. So this idea of an ideal neutral source, as you define it, is a fallacy. Sure I know all about the Brigham Young Adam/God doctrine and the Meadow Mountains Massacre and the supposed insurrection against the United States. You must think that I'm an idiot not knowing about this stuff while being a member. Padillah, if you want to correct people on insulting others it would be good not to insult them in your reply. Accusing me of not being able to think for myself, one who is fooled by his church, an ignorant person. That's quite an insult to my intelligence. But I'm not suprised when you read what you read thinking it is neutral material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve200255 ( talk • contribs) 19:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
ok, the rules say: "cannot be published by the church or its members" for a source to be reliable. This means that all references attributable to Richard Bushman must be deleted. Steve200255 ( talk) 20:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Hey Steve, You may notice that your concise, respectful, and well thought out input is quickly attacked as 'Mormon Point of View." That is the trend here on the article. Notice too that while you did not mention any specific individuals, merely the content and its bias, that you are quickly attacked for being disrespectful and ranting. Methinks the cynics doth protest too much. Seems you hit a sensitive nerve. I too tried to play by the rules in pointing out the glaring bias in the article but quickly gave up. The group dynamic here is pretty well entrenched and closed. Case in point, notice Padillah's comment that, "...you can't be as intelligent as you claim and still think the Church is perfectly honest and forthright in all it's dealings." Hmmm, you can't? So contributors must be apostate or at least hesitant in their beliefs? I don't think I've read anythng more cynical or ridiculous. I guess assuming good faith applies to everyone unless they are Mormons, their leaders, or their Church.
And as to Foxe's complaints about reliable source, here that means any reliable source that does not portray Joseph Smith in a good light. What it is supposed to mean is the source, the text, and the publisher must be reliable. Simply saying Joseph Smith is unreliable because you aren't LDS (or quoting from mostly unreliable and biased sources of skeptics who don't believe him either) is the worst bias and unfair. Yes, they'll argue Bushman but only use his writings which portray Joseph negatively. Remember, Bushman set out to identify Smith's normal human flaws because he was tired of the these were unfairly portrayed by other Smith critics. And still he concludes his writings with some beautiful insights into the incredibly principled and brave man Smith was, all of which is conveniently absent here.
If Brodie (a lady with serious personal issues who was in love with Thomas Jefferson) is reliable, Smith is reliable. Smith's writings, in context, are reliable. And the publishers (usually the Church) would only be argued as unreliable by enemies or biased cynics of Joseph Smith. So Joseph is a reliable source, his writings and history are reliable, and the publishers are reliable. It is for Foxe to prove (not merely state POV) otherwise, and he isn't doing a very convincing job especially given his stated bias against the LDS Church. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.180.110.164 ( talk) 14:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I better run, I'm on a hiatus from posting because I was taking too much flack and found the process of contributing a pointless waste of time. I remain here, sitting under my troll-bridge.
Word of advice, spend your nights with your family. Leave this article to the controllers of the article, remembering that time is on the side of truth. The dogs may bark, but the caravan rolls on.
199.60.41.15 ( talk) 02:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
This is what I have gleaned from reading this: Steve has valid concerns about the article. We need to address those concerns. Some of his concerns are not valid - but we should extend the courtesy of a meaningful explanation. Foxe needs to elaborate on what he thinks was/is not a reliable source regarding Steve's comment. Steve and Padillah should probably not engage eachother on whether or not Joseph/The Church 's teaching were correct. Let us talk about how to make the article better in a NPOV kind of way. Thanks. -- Suplemental ( talk) 19:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Padillah, apology fairly accepted. The problem is what was revealed in your statement, "You can't be as intelligent as you claim and still think the Church is perfectly honest and forthright in all it's dealings." See it reveals a clear bias against the LDS Church and its integrity. I don't fault you for holding such an opinion. That's your right. But the truth is either that the LDS Church is honest in its dealings, or it's not. But when you speak from such a biased position it taints every contribution you make to this article as suspect. Wikipedia says we should assume good faith, but if I meet a guy on the street carrying a sign reading 'Joseph Smith is a Liar,' don't expect me to put any money in his jar. Please remove yourself from contributing until you can approach the article more fair-mindedly or with a lot less bias. 173.180.110.164 ( talk) 01:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
I agree with Suplemental's direction to go from here. I'll respond to a few comments briefly. First, I never meant to sound or be contentious here, just trying to get a fair academic-type representation of the man called Joseph Smith Jr.. That's all I want or expect out of a public forum. To say that I'm expecting people to believe in Joseph Smith to be a prophet is simply not true. I've only talked about what are facts and who can be relied upon to deliver those facts--reliable sources in other words. In the eyes of the world and WP we must deliver these facts by way of secondary sources whenever possible, so as to prevent the claim that someone is lying to us out of their own bias and self-seeking interest. Our subject in this WP article is unique in several ways in that biases could be deemed to be just as strong against the man as they were for the man. Proof of this lies in the universally recognized incessant mob violence against him on the one hand, and those who gave up all they possess to follow him on the other. So the burden of the proof of a NPOV source is significant, in the eyes of the world. Is my logic ok so far? I will go a step further and postulate that those who were in those mobs, at the time, were not quiet in their opinions given the knowledge that mobs do not form unless there is outspoken public disdain. So now we have proof of regular and intense outspoken loud public disdain against the man called Joseph Smith Jr.. Popular opinion is a seed bed for bringing others onboard. So non-witnesses and total strangers now have a very strong perception that the man called Joseph the Prophet is of the worst sort of humanity on earth. Even before they come accross him they hate him. Is it any wonder that they found evil in the man looking through those kinds of lenses? Have you ever known someone to unfairly judge another person just because they already hated them? Is anyone here getting the notion that finding a neutral second source will be difficult?
Given all this we need to discuss what seems most easy to me to resolve here: what to do whenever Joseph Smith had a lone experience. Take, for example, the multiple visitations of the angel Moroni to Joseph. From a WP requirement and from an entirely skeptical perspective we need to get a second witness to speak up about it. The problem is there is no second witness. What do we do then? If you read any of my really long post above you will find a stark contrast between what Joseph Smith himself said (found in preserved journals and manuscripts from the time) and what others say happened who were never there (the current WP article). Steve200255 ( talk) 06:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Steve200255, this is a very good point, I would think the best way handled that would be to add the word “claimed” for all lone experiences. This is a neutral word so as to indicate it isn’t a documented fact but a possibility. Just because no one is around when you hit a hole in one doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.-- Alan355 ( talk) 21:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
By the way, another statement has been overlooked. If the attitude of "anything that isn't for the Mormon church is against it" is assumed to be a guiding principle, this article will never satisfy the strong adherents of the church. That's because a truly neutral page will be seen as "not for the church" and thus be termed anti-mormon. This article is actually not that unusual, except for the number of strong-willed people it tends to attract: in other words, it's a simple case of conflict of interest and verifiability policy that prevents us from using something from Joseph Smith himself as a reliable source. It's worth keeping in mind that WP:V and WP:RS are two of the 5 pillars that Wikipedia is organized around. This article is no exception to those principles, no matter how strongly people may feel about ensuring a specific version of The Truth is portrayed. tedder ( talk) 12:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for coming out and calling us "whin[ers]" again, Tedder. Your statement that, "This article will never satisfy the strong adherents of the church," clearly reveals a prejudiced and unfair bias. "Never?" Did you really mean that? Do you really believe that? I think you will find the LDS people quite fair-minded. What you will also find is we are generally a highly-educated people who are smart enough to recognize when something is not right. But since you're in charge around here, I'll climb back under my "troll" (your word not mine) bridge now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.180.110.164 ( talk) 14:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I would like to give my bit in this:
Routerone, please be careful with your rhetoric, using a phrase abominable lies and manipulative tricks is very similar to what you seem upset that the LDS and Smith are accused of. Please give specific changes you would like made. This article is not an envangelism tool it is an intellectual compilation of documented material about Smith’s life. -- Alan355 ( talk) 21:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
All due respect to those complaining about how they've been treated but, is there a citable source in our future? I've not been on this page for very long and I've been the subject of personal attacks and had my beliefs called into question. How about we stop talking about editors and start talking about edits? Now, having said that, please understand that there is no impetus for accepting primary source material except in special circumstances and there is a difference between a citation and a belief system. That said, I implore someone (I don't care who) to propose an edit and cite it's source so we can improve the article. Padillah ( talk) 17:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I would be happy just once to hear someone say the following;
"Hey Canadiandy. You, Steve, and Routerone have some very valid concerns. The fact that you and so many other LDS people (FAIRLDS, Steve, Routerone, yourself...) are so offended by this particular article makes me think maybe we should seriously look into it. I see how heavily this article draws from research collected by old school historians with an axe to grind or with no sensitivity to your faith as a formal religion. You're right, most (if not all)other religions are afforded a greater respect and tolerance than seems to have been here historically. I see that you are not merely "Whin[ing]" but are expressing frustration with the original tenor and cynical direction this article's framework was originally built on. I see that it is not merely a few small details that can be ironed out over a short period of time but an entire rethinking of the article that is likely needed. I also understand fully why you might feel so disenfranchised by the process. So, seeing we need to start hacking at the roots and not merely the leaves of the problem, what do you and any neutral researchers suggest we might do?"
As opposed to the now cliche rebuttals;
1. Quit whining. 2. Suggest a change (which we will belabor for weeks or simply revert) or shut up. 3. Joseph Smith is not a reliable source, his enemies are reliable because they are secondary while those who liked Smith don't count as they will obviously be biased. 4. Don't be so rude, remember assume good faith (even if it from those who are rudely hostile towards your own faith). 5. Why are you complaining, COgden is LDS and he doesn't have a problem with it. 6. We use Bushman and he's LDS (even though we only use the 'bad' parts).
The biggest waste of time would be to bury our heads in the sand and pretend that this is really close to a "Good Article" and we'll fix this by arguing over the word 'supernatural.' We need a huge paradigm shift or we'll continue on in this bizarre and cyclical Catch 22.
My serious proposal is that we revert back to , and begin again. It was much shorter, more concise, and much less biased. Seems pretty fairly neutral from where I stand. 173.180.110.164 ( talk) 03:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
Okay, BFizz, randomly I found the following;
"During the next four years, Smith made annual visits to Cumorah, only to return without the plates because he claimed that he had not brought with him the "right person" required by the angel."
Am I the only one who can see the cynicism dripping in this one? The phraseology, "only to return without" as opposed to "returning each time without" lends negative commentary. And if it is him claiming it, why the need to put the "right person" in quotation marks. This lends the tone that we have to question anything Smith says directly even when it is already qualified with the phrase "he claimed."
I think if you really deconstruct this thing neutrally it will become quite apparent this is an unfairly designed and written article as it stands. So now, will you please carry through with your promise and aid us in a fresh start?
Who else is willing to stay on if we start from a do over with the original article (29 Aug 2003) as the starting point?
173.180.110.164 ( talk) 06:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
Whether or not we are doing a fresh start: about the specific example I opened up in my last post...does anyone have any ideas about how to proceed? I would really like discussion on this. Canadiandy, your question assumes we have already accepted the authors Quinn and Bushman as reliable authors who used reliable second sources in their works. As you can read above, there is another account that says Smith said no such things. So lets first establish who can reliably speak for Joseph's lone experiences. Does this sound like a good way to go forward? Please, my question is repeated a third time. What does the community say on this topic? Steve200255 ( talk) 07:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm getting claims from all over the place that I am frustrated or I think I'm being treated unfairly. Also people are saying that I'm looking for a "faith promoting" article. That's obviously false. I originally came on here complaining about this stuff but have since started only talking from an editorial viewpoint. I think I made it clear. All I see from an editorial perspective is conflicting accounts about events. A real editor would recognize POV problems on both the inside as well as the outside on this particular subject. You can't put a WP rubber stamp approach by saying all outside journalists and authors are reliable. This subject is not like 99% of what WP usually covers. Here we have a phenomena occuring largely within a single country in which those who had good experiences with it joined it and those who had bad experiences hated it. Therefore all witnesses of the good experiences are automatically nullified under WP rules as you seem to say. From a neutral standpoint I see many problems with that. Am I off in that thinking? I mean I really do appreciate neutral outside sources whenever possible but on the same token I don't want to be taken by a non-neutral source either. Frankly I'm afraid by the fact that nobody here has acknowledged that. As if no one here wants to admit there ever existed bias against Joseph Smith in the entire published works of the world...as if academic presses would be immune. No one has ever lied about Joseph Smith. It's not smart not to question these things.
Concerning the question I just put forth; Padillah has come up with a common sense solution in talking to you John. All we have to say is that "Joseph claimed" this and that. Obviously, the readers will know that these statements are not backed up. This is the least that can be done. Any legal document, any news report, any piece of historical information always has what the person claimed or said. The article cannot leave those out. This isn't "faith promoting" this is just common sense of any editor writing about any person. Steve200255 ( talk) 19:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Much of the critical nature is the result of contemporary peer review of Smith’s life’s work. Apparently many of his comtemporaries considered him to be similar to modern day Jim Jones or David Karesh, and the modern existence of his established religion doesn’t erase the fact that his contemporaries viewed him as such, and as that is from secondary source and critical examination it holds at least some historical significance which is why some is cited here. There must be some material that can be used to accomplish your goals that fit the criteria, though I don’t know of any. Whether or not he actually was a prophet is a matter of faith which belongs in a religious discussion not an encyclopedia article. Using ‘claimed’ sounds like a great solution, and when there are conflicting reports as to what Smith claimed on different occasions, both should be recorded and noted as conflicting in the article.-- Alan355 ( talk) 21:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Anyone else want to try to come up with a different logical solution than Padillah's as to what to do about recounting Joseph's lone experiences? This might be the most critical question on this entire discussion page so far. Please comment. Steve200255 ( talk) 19:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
An unrelated note: the article is 164 kb long, which is 64 kb over the "split strongly recommended" size. I suggest Personal history vs. Distinctive views and teachings is a good splitting point. And that those section are WP:spinned out. Rursus dixit. ( mbork3!) 11:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Why?
For a careful and detailed analysis on this, see here: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]
There are, numerous problems with this page. This should never ever be a GA and its an absolute insult that someone had the idea to even think of nominating it. What an embarassment to wikipedia. Routerone ( talk) 10:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
There's an old wiki-saying to address your concerns, Routerone. SOFIXIT. Specific examples of what you feel is wrong are always welcome. FAIR brought up specific examples, and many have been addressed. ...comments? ~ B F izz 07:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the topic creator, this article is not close to being correct by any stretch of the imagination. It uses invalid references who used invalid references who used invalid references, etc. It's a mutual anti-mormon agreement society at work with the posted references. They all quote each other and also quote illegitimate "witnesses" who were actually just died in the wool Joseph Smith or Mormon haters. These include excommunicated Mormons (unrepentant sinners) who obviously would have gotten angry at the prophet for getting removed from the Church. What an obvious bias these people would have against Mormons and especially against Joseph Smith, Jr., and now they are believable sources??? How can historical truth be derived from such sources? It can't. That's why this article stinks, it is totally unbelievable. If you want to look up sources on the subject that meet the highest standards of world scholarly research refer to "The Joseph Smith Papers." It is a relatively new project that is coming out in annual installments that will eventually comprise 30 volumes. In it are photo copies of the original personal journal entries, correspondance, discourses and written histories, and legal and business documents of Joseph Smith written in his own hand and by the hands of those working alongside him. It beats the current references to published rumors.-- steve200255 ( talk) 21:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Understandably, everyone should be striving for historical authenticity using the "highest standards of world scholarly research", but in doing so we must consider that Joseph Smith did neither, and as such the Book of Mormon should be stricken as well. Much of the "embarrassing" evidence comes from mormon authors and BYU research. Many activities and lives of historical figures are not all admirable and it should be recorded honestly, embarrassing or not. If Joseph Smith was a fraud he should stand up to intelligent reason and study, if he doesn't then it should be recorded accordingly, that is the position of the Bible which he studied. Prophet or David Karesh, he deserves a fair study and we deserve honest answers.-- 12.109.196.226 ( talk) 21:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
In regards to the statement of Joseph Smith 'not adhering to' the highest standards of scholarly research that would be mixing apples and oranges. Obviously, a direct revelation or a revealed scriptural book cannot employ the methods of scholarly research to justify its own truth or validity. So I'm not sure what that statement by anonymous person could mean. Yes, I absolutely agree with what I think anonymous meant to say 'If Joseph Smith was a true prophet he should stand up to intelligent reason and study...". I'm pretty sure editors here are only supposed to look for facts and write in a proper tone, not making unjustifiable conclusions. In contrast, injecting personal feelings or qualifying historical events by what an editor feels is "embarassing" is not really material to this discussion.
As far as what I see as a need for specific corrections to the article I see there are no quotes from Joseph Smith himself. That's funny, this is a history and condensed biography of the man, shouldn't some of his own words be displayed? And for this, who could be trusted to have his own words recorded correctly? The Church with its preserved original documents or some outside source? FYI there is a very large difference in what the said Church has recorded as his words and what Quin and some of these other authors say are Joseph's own words. I've thought of the possibility of the Church altering Joseph's words to make them look better, but then that doesn't make sense given the question: why would the Church want to alter the recorded words of a man who obviously got many to follow him saying what he said? Editorially, I can't think of how the Church's records wouldn't be a lot more accurate than outside sources. In addition there is quite a difference between what editors on here summarize as Joseph's words and what the Church has recorded as what he said. LDS.org has the Church's records and links. Steve200255 ( talk) 17:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
I've requested outside opinions regarding the article's neutrality at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity#Help requested at Joseph Smith, Jr. ...comments? ~ B F izz 03:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks BFizz.
////Canadiandy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.180.110.164 ( talk) 06:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Ouch. Did you compare the tenor of the article with those of other non-mainstream Christian articles (i.e. Seventh-Day Adventists, Jehovahs Witness, Masons, or other leaders, i.e. Luther, Mohammed)? Could you please also look onto one aspect of the problem, if you have time. Read or even scan Bushman's "Rough Stone Rolling." It is the only "Pro-LDS" (in quotation marks because it is only cited as pro-LDS because the writer is himself LDS, most LDS would, including Bushman himself now, would not view his writing as Pro-LDS but as academically neutral at best) writing that seems to be used more than a few times. And if you read the book you will likely identify that his research is cherry-picked. When he writes on Smith's weakness that is included, when he does not it is ignored. It is unfair that the only LDS writer who is accepted is one whose writing focus was to identify Smith's flaws. I don't see any anti-LDS contributors whose focus was to find the good in Smith's life. 173.180.110.164 ( talk) 14:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
It's not "what's said about Luther, Mohammad", and others that is relevant. It's how it's said. It is the tone of respect and dignity which forms precedence for courtesy and respect for their topic. Again you are speaking with an inflammatory tone when you write things like, "Fawn Brodie, the bête noire of the LDS Church... ." The Church leadership has not paid much, if any, attention to her as an individual at all. They have on a few minor occasions addressed her works, but have been quite respectful of her academic privileges. The only people who really know much about her at all are member academics like Nibley and such. The reality is that with so much mud that's been slung at us over the past 150 years we pretty much ignore it all. When I step outside my LDS perspective though, in the interest of social justice, I think it should not be so.
I love reading about the town of Quincy Illinois that took in Pioneer Saints while everone else around them was driving them out for their religious beliefs. I've read about Quincy. I have ancestors that went through Quincy. Folks, this is no Quincy.
It's up to you now, Bork. 199.60.41.15 ( talk) 19:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
Sir, Smith was an inflammatory individual in his time, this article reflects that and still inflames people. That reaction is more (though not necessarily) indicative of the man than the quality of this article. Many of the events in his life are reasons for which so much good and ill intentioned ‘mud’ is around. The crusades are a black eye on catholicism but it happened, murdered women and children in the streets of Jerusalem, it looks bad and reflects the state of the religious organization of the time, but it happened. Smith may look bad historically and we need to be open enough to say maybe it’s accurate and looking bad could indicate truth just as much as a POV. Not trying to make the comparison but Hitler orchestrated the holocaust, if mud is thrown at his historical impact by contemporary critics it would be deserved. Please recommend changes or sources you think fixes the problem. -- Alan355 ( talk) 21:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Of course there would be whole issues of BYU studies devoted to Brodie's writings. She is, as you say, prominent. But you would be just as critical of the Church if BYU did not discuss Brodie's writings so your point is empty. If you read your own quote, even it is referring to the study of her work, not her personally. BYU is an accredited University with tenured professors and still you are inferring the Church (not BYU professors or individual members)somehow singles her out as a "bête noire." If you mean certain individuals, fair. Say that. But not the Church. That is totally untrue. And please be civil, referring to my concerns as sentimental musings is condescending and seems out of line with the five pillars. 173.180.110.164 ( talk) 23:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
What evidence and names does Bringhurst provide in reference to these mysterious "spokesmen" who stepped up attacks against her? Or is he relying on Brodie's own testimony of the fact? I'm not surprised the Church responding to her writings (remember many non-member critics were highly critical of Brodie) but what proof do you have to back up your words that the Church was discourteous towards Brodie personally as you implied. 173.180.110.164 ( talk) 05:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
Huh? The only direct reference to Brodie made in any of these reports is Widtsoe. And all he says is her book (again her work, not her) "should be of no interest to Latter-Day Saints." I hardly see how this justifies you or Bringhurst (who himself states to have had a "Literary affair with Fawn M. Brodie" no bias there, hey) making the claim that Brodie is (not 'was') the (not 'a') bête noire of the Church or "attack[ed]" by its spokesmen. As to the book review, it seems perfectly in line with what other non-mormon reviewers were saying about her book (i.e. she cherry-picked her findings to prove her hypothesis). I don't see how that qualifies as an attack on Brodie herself. Should the reviewer have lied (calling the book good to avoid conflict)? Or if he had not reviewed Brodie's book (to silence it) she would likely have seen that as an attack as well. Doesn't Bringhurst allude to that on page 107 (FMB: ALB)? 173.180.110.164 ( talk) 16:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
This is getting heated, John. Clearly, you seem to feel Joseph Smith is an evil man and that the article is bang on, while I think he was a man of great integrity and that the sources and contexts here have been choreographed almost as much as Brodie's and the biographer who 'Fawns' after her. You can take comfort in the fact that most people here are agreeing with you at present and so I'll back off before this turns into a wall of text. 199.60.41.15 ( talk) 18:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
Thanks for the offer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.180.110.164 ( talk) 16:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
The articles on Idi Amin and Nixon are both GA too. I doubt I'd call those people reliable sources. Hey, didn't Brodie actually do a bio on Nixon detailing his having a gay lover? I don't seem to see that tidbit on the Wikipedia article, nor is she included as a source there. And I don't see her writings on Jefferson on Wikipedia. In fact, it seems the only time her extensive professional work is ever sourced is when she is writing on Joseph Smith, and then she's a prominent, reliable source. So, her extensive Nixon research isn't noteworthy. Her extensive Jefferson research isn't noteworthy. But her exposé on Joseph Smith is embraced as the forefront, most prominent work on the subject. Perhaps when this article can find more reliable and stable sources (remember prominent does not necessarily mean reliable) that did not need psychotherapy, it will have a better chance at GA. 173.180.112.66 ( talk) 16:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
Thanks, Rursus, for your input. I don't really see what could be improved for the "impact" section, it is intentionally there to illustrate the positive light that Smith's followers see him in, and always uses phrases like "to Latter Day Saints", "the Saints believed", and "Mormon leaders began teaching". ...comments? ~ B F izz 22:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
This article has been listed at WP:Good article nominations for about a month. Due to the backlog, reviewers have not yet gotten to this article. If any of you have the spare time, please help review other unrelated articles to help clear the backlog. Just thought I'd mention. Thanks, guys. ...comments? ~ B F izz 04:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
This article has been disputed heavily with regards to it's neutrality. Some of these are old, but some are relatively recent. What is the consensus, is this article stable and neutral enough to be a GA? I would appreciate it if someone could give an up-to-date statement regarding the neutrality debate. Obvious neutrality is a clear requirement for a GA. Reviewer: ~ Gosox( 55)( 55) 17:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Gosox,
I'm a bit of a vocal outsider here so take my input for what it's worth.
From my position the article is quite inflammatory in overall tone (thus the frequent input by myself and others highly offended in the LDS community), long, over-sourced, and dependent on unstable sources. Many argue that Brodie is the most prominent on the subject, but as many would gladly source another researcher with less academic baggage (much speculation on her methods and bias). The other researcher cited frequently is touted by contributors as a faithful Mormon, yet this is a red herring as the majority of his research (in his book "A Rough Stone Rolling") was purposely aimed at finding the subject's flaws. This does not exclude his research but does beg the question about balance in the article. I know there are many who would like to see this article GAed as recognition of their efforts, but I think we need to remember this is not an article about pomegranates, it is about an important religious figure to a large faith community, and prudence and sensitivity should be considered before expediting this article's approval prematurely.
Thanks.
173.180.112.66 ( talk) 17:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
For what it's worth, I'm a non-Mormon (in fact, a "never-been-a-Mormon") who believes this encyclopedia article is about as unbiased and nicely balanced as any piece about Joseph Smith can be. I wish to be respectful here, but I think what Weaponbb7 interprets as pro-Mormon bias stems from his own lack of familiarity with the literature.-- John Foxe ( talk) 20:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Ok I knew i have some flack from people who worked so hard on it and have done a pretty desecent job. this is normal type of reaction is normal
"sectarian ferver of their day" its not the type of language that is not good in a Encyclopedia its very flowery language. There is a fair bit of flowery language here which could be reduced to more simple and precise words. "well-to-do neighbor"
Below the Infobox in there is Template that says says "This article is part of the series Joseph Smith, Jr." Than list the subjects "the polygammy" and "Criticism" Among other things sections that were left out of the article. I do not know why these two were left out but they were so i have to question why? leaving those two out seemed odd to leave out I had to question why?
"Legacy" seems an odd choice of words for a section it makes it sound like the page is memorial.
Classic example of language I am concerned about "Historians regard Joseph Smith as one of the most imaginative, charismatic, and controversial leaders in American religious history." Its stated but this needs to be expanded as it is not clear to me reading it what is "imaginative" about what he has done? and again why is he "controversial leaders." this could substatially expanded by a few paragraphs.
"On matters of public policy, Smith favored a strong central bank and high tariffs to protect American business and agriculture. Smith disfavored imprisonment of convicts except for murder, preferring efforts to reform criminals through labor; he also opposed courts-martial for military deserters. " is complexly uncited could use citation. critical Commentary might involve some scholarly Analysis of his action Stephen A. Kent wrote a good one a few years ago that might be useful as an example or as a useful reference
I would argue that "Some Scholars" is weaselly... just name the scholars who say so!
Over all I think this article is pretty good. The Actual Biography portion of his life is so well done I can't find anything wrong with it. I think I will give this the thumbs up once the flowery language is cleared up and the legacy section is rewritten to include the scholarly analysis of him. Weaponbb7 ( talk) 23:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
An example of the type of commentary I would look for: http://caliber.ucpress.net/doi/pdfplus/10.1525/nr.2010.13.3.34
[11] This is the kind of stuff i might be looking for Weaponbb7 ( talk) 23:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
There's a Second Opinion request and two reviews, and there appears to have been no activity on the GA Review for over a month. Who is actually doing the review? And is a Second Opinion still requested? Speed is not the priority in a GA Review, and if the review is still in progress that is fine, though an update comment would be useful at this point. SilkTork * YES! 16:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't mean any offense, but when Weaponbb wrote,
"This article has some severe flaws with bias as it lacks critical commentary of this figure."
I was left wondering if he had read the right article. This whole article is nothing but a critical commentary.
Polygamist? treasure-hunter? Exorcist? Tried as disorderly? Power-grabbing? Military leader in retreat? "Dirty"? "Nasty"? Poor financial oversight? Intimidating? Pillaging? Media suppressor?
And that's all in the first half of the article! You can believe all that tripe, but surely you can't suggest the article lacks critical commentary. If that's praise, I'd hate to see what criticism is.
Is there anyone here that would argue that the majority of the references sources are not critics of Joseph? The only one I can find who is not cynically critical in their research is Bushman, and his writings were purposely aimed at finding Joseph's flaws. So Brodie gets to write, fair. And LDS Church Historians are excluded based on a sensitivity to POV, arguably fair. But for anyone to then suggest the article is not critical enough after all that?
My input is that this article has a strong structurally negative bias. I don't lay the fault so much with the contributors, as much as the framework of sources on which Joseph Smith's life has been myopically defined. Until the 1970s, the only academics who seemed to be writing (the consensus here is often that, unfortunately, Brodie is the best we have) about Joseph Smith had strong negative biases. And when you then take out the acceptance of LDS sources it is not surprising the article reads more like an expose'.
So my two bits. This article may be on hold for a few years until it can be fundamentally reworked. No, I do not expect it to look like a Mormon pamphlet. But, yes, I expect it to go back to the drawing board until there are more reliable historians (not merely anti-Mormon or even pro-Mormon cynics) who are not writing because they have an axe to grind. The problem is not the contributors, the problem is not the good will to balance this based on the evidence. The problem, I think, is with the very limited availability of reliable AND unbiased research.
Fawn Brodie was actually right when she wrote, "No man knows my history." And as Nibley referred to her research, "No, Ma'am, that's not history."
Feel free to slag a great religious leader, just take a little time before you do to notice the dove on top of the discussion page.
Canadiandy1 ( talk) 06:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
COgden,
Unfair. I never said that all non-Mormon writers have an axe to grind. But I do think that the majority of evidence written about Joseph Smith before the 1970s was inherently based in a 'love him/hate him' paradigm. Neither do I "...suspect the motives of anyone writing about Mormonism who isn't a firm believer." Your words, not mine. It was Charles Dickens who wrote,
"But I went on board their ship to bear testimony against them if they deserved it, as I fully believed they would; to my great astonishment, they did not deserve it; and my predispositions and tendencies must not affect me as an honest witness, I went over the Amazon's side, feeling it impossible to deny that, so far, some remarkable influence had produced a remarkable result, which better-known influences have often missed."
Last I checked Dickens was not a Mormon.
But forgive me a fair academic skepticism when I ask individuals writing on Joseph Smith the following;
1. What is your motivation in writing on Joseph Smith? 2. What will you use as your evidences and sources? 3. When you come across unproven or speculative evidences, how will you address them?
As an example, my non-Mormon father is in the process of writing a book on the history of Louis Riel. I asked him why, as there is no family/religious/historical connection whatsoever, he would write on such a topic. His reason is that since Riel was a polarizing figure, most of the histories he has read are founded in a positive or negative bias. As he is not on either side of the history he feels he would make a better writer on the topic for that very reason.
I think this is a perfect parallel to the problem with this article. Joseph Smith researchers may attempt neutrality, but their sources are largely drawn from wildly biased sources (those who loved him enough to write, or those who hated him enough to write). And no, I don't even blame the Mormon haters for this paradox. It's not a question of who's right and wrong, it's a question of when are we going to look for better sources that the 'poisoned tree' we've been eating from for so long.
One of the discussions we (I, sorry) debated for a long time related to the number of wives Joseph Smith was purported to have had. While DNA testing has yet to prove a single offspring from Joseph (except through Emma) the old records are given preferred treatment. I don't expect people to agree with my religious beliefs, I do expect the historians and contributors here to have the courage to admit that not enough is truly 'known' about Joseph to fly this article as an accurate depiction (Good Article) of who Joseph Smith was. It seems amazingly Quixotic to do so.
You make the point that several "scholars all cite each other, and everybody cites them." I suspect if we sat them down and asked them if they were happy with the quality of evidence available to them they would say pretty much what I'm saying here, It's too bad Joseph Smith was such a polarizing figure, because it's hard to know which, of any of the early chroniclers can be trusted. And those that are worth their salt would be saying something like, we're just scratching the surface of Joseph Smith, the only thing Brodie got right is when she quoted Smith's own words, "No man knows [his] history."
Hey, look. A windmill.
Canadiandy1 ( talk) 01:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
Because few here will accuse me of being pro-Mormon, I have taken the liberty to revert a number of changes made by Tao2911. Tao did not introduce any alternate citations for his changes but simply rewrote sentences based on his own notions of NPOV. I'd be happy to discuss his proposals here if anyone's interested.-- John Foxe ( talk) 19:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
The passage and source read before that there was an essay "published over his name" in favor of slavery - this doesn't mean anything in our language. Reviewing footnotes, it seemed clear that what was meant was "under" his name, which means simply he wrote it (unless there is some dispute, which would then need further explication). He clearly later changed this view. In other words, he "came to oppose slavery." Simple English, friend. In addition, "strongly" here is not NPOV, since the strength of this stance is questionable in context, not to mention according to footnote that he continued to oppose abolition. Tao2911 ( talk) 20:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Foxe, don't argue in favor of antiquated speech - why would you argue in favor of not just saying simply that "he wrote"? I don't know his stance - I simply reviewed this article per its status as possible "Good Article" and I found a number of glaring peculiarities, questionable instances of non-neutral POV, and inconsistencies.
cogden, by your own explanation here, he wrote in favor of slavery. He later changed this opinion. He therefor "came to oppose it." Again, perhaps that view grew in increasing strength, but to say that God favored it, so he did to, is hardly a ringing critique of the practice. Don't add "strongly." I find it to be biased - no matter sources, which we are encouraged to rephrase to make for better reading in view of all sources, context. Likewise with the clear obfuscation regarding his having written in favor of slavery. You all agree he did so. I agree he changed this position. That is what passage now says. Let it ride. Tao2911 ( talk) 22:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
“ | Except for a pro-slavery essay published over his name in 1836, Smith strongly opposed slavery. | ” |
I've made a few edits in response to this revert. Each individual edit of mine has its own explanation. I would be happy to talk any of them over on the talk page as necessary. Note that I did not simply re-revert, but rather, in some cases, made adjustments/improvements. ...comments? ~ B F izz 07:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I'd just like to request that Foxe simply discuss individual points here, as agreed, before reverting to earlier contested versions of page. I explained with labels each of my edits carefully; if they are contested, please say so now here. Foxe has reached, or is close to, technical definition of edit war here, and no one wants be blocked. Tao2911 ( talk) 22:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up Routerone. I just thought John Foxe was a contributor. Can you explain where I can go to learn more about this 'arbitrator' role? The term is new to me. Oh yeah, while Tao is clearly not pro-Smith, I tend to trust his judgment based on his respect for neutral tone and religious sensitivity at the same time. I too would rather see this thing bare bones and neutral than a little kind and a whole lot offensive. He and I may not agree on religion, but I haven't read anything by him yet that suggests he is insensitive to our faith.
173.180.112.66 ( talk) 00:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
Where is this stated, please, that arbitrators are free from basic wiki etiquette? And why does he agree to discuss individual changes above, before reverting? Likewise, he may be arbitrator, but instances like using "published over his name" instead of "he wrote", and treating the word "prophet" as an objective category like "lawyer", show that no one has a corner on Wiki perfection or omniscience. Tao2911 ( talk) 22:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I suspect Tao is a newcomer. Albeit a sharp, intellectual, newcomer, but I suggest not biting. He's just frustrated as would be any newcomer to this article. Please show a little courtesy.
173.180.112.66 ( talk) 00:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
I sense some ill will here, Doc. Even though I've been off and on in the discussions here for several months I accept the label newcomer. I meant absolutely no disrespect when I referred to Tao that way, in fact I was coming to his defense. I was not aware of the fact he had been here for years and I noticed his user page was quite short and that is why I wrote I "suspected" he was a newcomer and to be nice. I will readily admit I was wrong. I notice your evil wink emoticon so I will assume you were merely giving a polite ribbing.
Canadiandy1 ( talk) 04:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
Thanks for sticking up for me Duke.
Canadiandy1 ( talk) 04:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
One of Tao's changes was very necessary, and I'm having problems finding the old discussion in the archive about it. Currently, the article states that Smith was a prophet. That's not a description that can be treated as a fact: most non-Mormons would dispute it, and many people would dispute that any prophets exist at all. I thought we had agreed on a softer wording for that.— Kww( talk) 00:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
First lines of a few more articles:
Context is enough. It seems natural for a variety of Wikipedians to write this way without batting an eye. Nobody is going to read the statement that "so and so is a prophet of ___" and suddenly think, "oh! Wikipedia says I should believe this person is a prophet!" Rather, they will think, "oh, this person is considered a prophet by believers in / adherents of ___". It's natural modern English usage of the word, imho. ...comments? ~ B F izz 15:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
This puts us right back at the "prophet" vs. "Prophet" debate again. I thought we decided to leave the reference to the position and title within the organization ("Smith held the title of Prophet...") Please correct me if I'm mistaken. I still hold that it should be left to the reader if they believe in prophets or not but referencing the title is correct and avoids the issue altogether. Padillah ( talk) 20:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't really care whether the wording is that Joseph was a prophet, believed to be a prophet or whatever else the focus is here. What I disagree with is the term that he is the 'founder' of the LDS movement. This disregards the belief by most Latter-Day Saints that it was Christ who established his Church through Joseph Smith. Perhaps a rewrite like, "To members within the Latter-Day Saint movement, Joseph Smith was a prophet through whom Jesus Christ established his Church." It seems respectful, neutral, and hopefully succinct.
Similarly, the phrase, "... he founded a church in western New York, claiming it to be a restoration of early Christianity." Would be better written, "...he organized in western New York a church that he claimed was a restoration of the early Christian church."
Again, this reflects the position that Joseph Smith believed he was organizing the Church under the direction of Jesus Christ himself. It also avoids the vague term "early Christianity" which is indistinct in scope and meaning. (i.e. the followers of Christ at the Nicene Council could be seen as part of early Christianity, but Smith would clearly suggest the Church's authority was no longer in force many years before that time. Canadiandy1 ( talk) 20:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
Thanks, John. One slight correction, from my research Luther did not believe Christ was the founder of his Church (unless you are referring to the Catholic Church which he worked passionately to reform). While Luther helped in the formation of a new religious Order (based in most ways upon the Catholic practices), the Lutheran Church did not seem to have been fully organized until some years later (yes Mormons often recognize Luther's inspiration) footsteps. And yes, I would welcome correction from any Lutherans as I am no expert here. In fact the term 'Lutheran' was a derogatory one as it was the practice of the Catholic Church of the day to name apostate splinter groups after their leader. Similar to how the term 'Mormon' was attributed to the LDS members. Likewise, Wesley (another man many LDS believe to have been inspired) remained an Anglican and never assumed an organized Church through his stewardship. But Joseph Smith recognized a stewardship in not merely shaping or reforming, but in acting as a chief steward (so to speak) in Christ's restoration of The Church of Jesus Christ [of Latter-Day Saints] and this makes him somewhat unique.
In response to your question about how "early Christian church" differs from "early Christianity." The early Christian Church is seen by Latter-Day Saints as the organization which existed when Christ was upon the earth (We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth - Article of Faith 6)and for a short season after. In essence, the apostles continued to exercise their authority but based on a lack of finding 'quorum' they were unable to function as a quorum and so the presiding authority was lost. This does not mean the LDS Church refutes the Catholic claim to apostolic succession, merely that the authority was eventually no longer recognized by Christ (likely at the death of the last of the New Testament apostles but that is my own speculation). The term 'Early Christianity' on the other hand seems to reflect the body and beliefs of followers of Christ during an earlier period which might span hundreds of years (over 300 years according to Wikipedia). Based on Smith's writings it would be absurd to think he was restoring the Church as it existed at the Nicene Council. So the term Early Church is preferable to Early Christianity. The Church Smith restored, we believe, was that which existed closer to c. 30 not c. 325.
Thanks again, John. Hoping we can find some better will in the future. Canadiandy1 ( talk) 02:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
I stopped talking for a day to try and clear my head, but still have the same fundamental objection. No one is actually a prophet. They don't exist. No Wikipedia article should assert that any person is one without a qualifier.—
Kww(
talk)
22:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Kww.
I agree with you that WP should not be identifying anyone as a prophet full-stop. That approaches bias. I have argued here that while it is my belief he was, that is not fair to neutral journalism. I prefer the statement should read that the Latter-Day Saints believed him to be a prophet. But even better I would argue that he is identified by the LDS (and I believe the RLDS) people as a 'Prophet' (capital 'P'). For us the title 'Prophet' is an actual office title within the High Priesthood. And common sensibility allows that terms like, Reverend, Dean, Bishop, Pope, and even King are appropriate, and so is the title (not qualifier) 'Prophet.'
Perhaps it could read:
"Joseph Smith, Jr. (December 23, 1805 – June 27, 1844) was the first Prophet (an office of Church Priesthood) of the Latter Day Saint movement."
I still prefer the word 'faith' as opposed to 'movement', but that's for another discussion.
Hope this helps.
Canadiandy1 ( talk) 03:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
I decided to discover what other encyclopedias use as their lead for Joseph Smith. Here are the results:
So there's ammunition here for any argument made above. If someone made me Grand Poobah of this article, I would write: "founder and first leader of the [LDS Church] and other Mormon denominations. His followers regard him as a prophet of God."-- John Foxe ( talk) 14:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I still don't like founder because it ignores the belief or possibility that it was God who organized the Church through Joseph. Yes, that cannot be written because it can not be proven, but neither can it be disproved therefore it should be reworded if possible. As I suggested, something like "For Latter-Day Saints, Joseph Smith was a prophet through whom Jesus Christ restored his Church" would be both neutral and accurate. I think Kww would be satisfied as this would not reflect Joseph Smith's authority, it would merely identify the common Latter-Day Saint belief about Smith's role in the restoration.
173.180.112.66 ( talk) 21:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
@Anon, I think in this instance we have to view "founder" from a real-world viewpoint. Joseph Smith Jr. is the guy who signed the papers that incorporated the body of believers into a formal, federally recognized church. What some people believe and who's signature are on the papers may be two different things. Padillah ( talk) 12:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree that Joseph was responsible for the legal foundation of the Church as an entity, and in that context he is the founder of the Church. And yes, Padillah, I agree the belief and legal reality may be two different things. So I would be fine adding the fact that Joseph acted in a lawful way, organizing the Church in accordance with State law as this is a positive, but again, I am trying to show sensitivity to those who do not believe Joseph Smith to be an inspired leader. So aiming at succinct brevity I proposed, "For Latter-Day Saints, Joseph Smith was a prophet through whom Jesus Christ restored his Church". I would be just as happy having it read;
"For Latter-Day Saints, Joseph Smith was a prophet through whom Jesus Christ restored his Church. On April 6, 1830, Smith legally incorporated and organized the church in compliance with New York State laws as an incorporation with six original members and himself and Oliver Cowdery being elected as presiding Elders (New York law required 3 to 9 initial committee members and 2 elected officers)."
Oh yeah, John, in your edit I think you left the word 'the' behind. As in "the Early Christianity".
173.180.112.66 ( talk) 16:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
I am interested in revising the recounting of the Expositor ordeal. The wording is confusing. It currently reads: "That summer, after a local publication criticized Smith's teachings, including plural marriage, Smith and, the Nauvoo city council ordered the destruction of the newspaper as a nuisance."
As it stands, it sounds as if Smith acted independently and specifically outside of his duties to remove the Expositor because it said mean things about him, which we know is not true; Smith counseled with the city council in his capacity as mayor and participated in the negotiations based on that position, not as an influential but uninvolved angry man. It should also be noted in here somewhere that the council's decision was made with regard for current legal precedent and on the basis of "keeping the peace" after the publication generated an uproar in Nauvoo.
I suppose the specific mention of plural marriage is OK since that was one of the major criticisms by the Expositor.
I think it may also be prudent to avoid the implication that the Expositor was an established paper that existed for some reason *besides* criticizing Smith.
What do you all think of something like this? "That summer, a controversial publication highly negative of Smith was issued, criticizing his teachings, especially plural marriage. Fearing aggravated mob violence, the Nauvoo city council, with Smith as mayor, ruled the publication a public nuisance and ordered its destruction."
It probably needs some work, but just throwing that out there. Let me know what you think. cooki e caper ( talk / contribs) 13:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Haven't given it too much thought, but to make it more readable I suggest changing,
"A publication critical of Smith was disseminated and deemed a public nuisance by the Nauvoo city council, with Smith as mayor"
To
"While Smith was mayor of Nauvoo, a publication critical of him was deemed a public nuisance by the city council and was disseminated"
Just a style proposal.
Bring on the mini-wheats.
I also like,
"That summer, a publication highly critical of Smith was circulated, criticizing his teachings, especially those on plural marriage. Fearing aggravated mob violence the Nauvoo city council, with Smith as mayor, ruled the publication a public nuisance and ordered its destruction." 173.180.112.66 ( talk) 01:11, 18 July 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
Looks good COgden but it reads oddly. Perhaps some commas. Like; "That summer, the Nauvoo city government led by Smith ordered the destruction, as a nuisance, of a newspaper that criticized Smith's power and recent teachings." Don't know how to fix it without making it longer but it seems awkward that way too. Perhaps, "That summer, the Nauvoo city government led by Smith ordered the destruction of a newspaper that criticized Smith's power and recent teachings, on the grounds of its being a nuisance." 173.180.112.66 ( talk) 17:25, 18 July 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
The article reads,
"Since 1835, the church had publicly denied accusations that members were practicing polygamy,[143] but behind the scenes, a rift developed between Smith and Oliver Cowdery over the issue.[144]"
First, the scope of the sentence here seems to be on the rift between Smith and Cowdery so including the church's denial makes the sentence progression awkward. Is the rift over polygamy or the church's "denial" of it? Needs a clean up.
Second, the link to the church's denial is dead so it should be questioned, updated, or removed.
Third, based on the argument that plural marriage was possibly dynastic in nature at that time and that it was a dangerously hot topic, (no I'm not trying to rehash the issue) what evidence exists that the church was complicit in acting in bad faith in these denials. It kind of reads like that. So if the rift is linked to polygamy (and not the church's denial of it) could it not read better as;
"Since 1835, some church members had been secretly practicing polygamy [fix dead link], and behind the scenes, a rift developed between Smith and Oliver Cowdery over the issue.[144]"
or
"Since 1835, the church had secretly permitted the practice of polygamy [fix dead link], and behind the scenes, a rift developed between Smith and Oliver Cowdery over the issue.[144]"
or if the link can't be fixed,
"In 1835 a rift developed between Smith and Oliver Cowdery over the issue of polygamy.[144]"
173.180.112.66 ( talk) 09:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
Great COgden, as long as the link (143) is changed to the book and not the website.
173.180.123.27 ( talk) 23:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
Under "Life in Ohio" it reads:
"...Smith also "translated" a papyrus obtained from a traveling mummy show"
According to History of the Church (2:235) On the 3rd of July, Michael H. Chandler came to Kirtland to exhibit some Egyptian mummies. There were four human figures, together with some two or more rolls of papyrus covered with hieroglyphic figures and devices. As Mr. Chandler had been told I could translate them, he brought me some of the characters, and I gave him the interpretation."
Does Brodie have different evidence that Smith went to Chandler's show? I recommend this might read better as;
"Smith also "translated" a papyrus given him by Michael H. Chandler who traveled with an exhibition (show) of Egyptian mummies. It was later published as the Book of Abraham."
This adds a name to the exhibitor and a context given the debate over who approached whom. As it stands it reads that Joseph Smith went to some random sideshow, brought home a souvenir, and translated it as scripture. The HC reference seems to suggest something quite different.
Additionally, I can't see any reference to the Book of Moses and wonder if it should not be included. Not sure why one is there and not the other. If for brevity, perhaps drop the whole line, add links and this rewrite;
"Smith also recorded two additional books of scripture, the Book of Abraham and the Book of Moses. One a translation from possible ancient Egyptian papyrus, the other received as part of Smith's "translation" of the Bible."
173.180.112.66 ( talk) 08:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
Looks great COgden. The individual isn't critical here, but could the HC record be referenced so that the name of the exhibitor is available for those wanting to research further? Also, is there evidence the papyri were purchased, if not how about 'received' in place of 'purchased' unless there is evidence to the contrary. Good proposal, COgden.
173.180.112.66 ( talk) 05:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
BFizz,
Using 'acquired' is a stroke of genius. It stays neutral as to the speculation of whether the papyri were gifted, borrowed, or purchased.
173.180.112.66 ( talk) 08:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
From what I am reading in "The Rise of Mormonism: 1816-1844" (H. Michael Marquardt), the confusion over the purchase or not of the papyri comes from the fact that the papyri accompanied the purchase of 4 mummies. So In essence Smith did not in fact purchase the papyri, he purchased the mummies and the papyri were thrown in. From this context, how about,
"Smith also purported to translate, from Egyptian papyri he acquired from Michael H. Chandler [notation 'X'], a text he later published as the Book of Abraham." [Notation 'X' to read] Chandler was the inheritor by will of 11 mummies and papyri from Antonio Lebolo. These items were on display in a traveling Egyptian exhibition. Smith was required to purchase 4 mummies in order to acquire the papyri and did so for the sum of $2400. (Marquardt, H. Michael, The Rise of Mormonism: 1816-1844)
As a side note, does anyone know what ever happened to the mummies Smith purchased? Last I read Emma had them.
173.180.123.27 ( talk) 00:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
I agree, B Fizz. What I think I am hearing is that the "tiny bit" should be the name of the individual, not just somebody or the show. Anything more I think adds even more text to an article it seems we are trying to shorten.
How about adding the descriptor 'exhibitor' as in;
"Smith also purported to translate, from Egyptian papyri he acquired from exhibitor Michael H. Chandler [notation 'X'], a text he later published as the Book of Abraham." [Notation 'X' to read] Chandler was the inheritor by will of 11 mummies and papyri from Antonio Lebolo. These items were on display in his traveling Egyptian exhibition. Smith was required to purchase 4 mummies in order to acquire the papyri and did so for the sum of $2400. (Marquardt, H. Michael, The Rise of Mormonism: 1816-1844)
173.180.123.27 ( talk) 16:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
Good points COgden. Looking it over I like your earlier recommendation;
I'm good with claimed. It seems to say the same thing and it's shorter. Alternatively it could be stated;
By stating "made a translation" as opposed to "translated" it seems to infer that the correctness of the translation remains open to discussion.
Still, I prefer,
173.180.123.27 ( talk) 15:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
StormRider, I see where you are coming from. But I don't think this is a case of alerting readers to a controversy as much as it is referencing the important debate that exists. Though I do prefer the word 'asserted' it makes for awkward or wordy rephrasing. Any suggestions on how to get around it? 173.180.123.27 ( talk) 22:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
I'm going to be bold here and add the variation (with claimed instead of purported) on COgden's
I know StormRider isn't happy with it, but then I don't think anything here will ever be 100% satisfied (this is an article of religious significance). If nothing else, I think we would all agree the change is an improvement to the original phrasing and maybe there will be time to rehash this one at a later date. I'm not sure about adding links so would you help me out COgden?
173.180.123.27 ( talk) 18:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
Actually I think I did it right by just leaving the old link and editing around it.
Also, if anyone is interested, in "Life in Ohio" I moved a quotation mark from the phrase Smith's life descended into a tangle of intrigue and conflict"
to
In looking at the original quote it begins at Smith (actually Joseph Smith's).
173.180.123.27 ( talk) 18:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
On the Good Article nomination page, it has been argued that the article has several instances easter eggs and overlinking. I have therefore revised the introduction, which I agree had too many unnecessary links. There is a school of thought out there that introductions should have a lower link density than other parts of the article, and I'm sympathetic to that, because if a reader reads something in the intro and wants to find out more, she should skip down and read the rest of the article, rather than reading a linked article. Let me know if anyone has a problem with my proposed changes to linking in the introduction.
The rest of the article needs to be combed over. Nasty Housecat raised the following examples of overlinked terms: "Book of Mormon, golden plates, polygamy, Carthage, and many others." We need to decide how often we want to link certain terms like Book of Mormon. Once per section? (Only linking once in the whole article is probably not enough, because we don't want the reader to have to comb back through the article to find the link.) COGDEN 01:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Id like to suggest a change in pictures used under the heading 'Founding a church (1827–30)'. The current picture, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:JosephSmithTranslating.jpg isn't clear enough to reflect the picture note. I prefer this picture: http://www.imagesoftherestoration.org/blog/wp-content/nggallery/Mormon%20Art/jstranslatingbom.jpg which is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License, because of its clarity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canstusdis ( talk • contribs) 18:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
One of Joseph's most famous prophecies is an accurate description of the civil war 33 years before it began. How come this isn't included? - Samuel Clayton —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuel Clayton ( talk • contribs) 18:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
(Copy paste removed by User:B Fizz. See Doctrine and Covenants section 87 on lds.org.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuel Clayton ( talk • contribs) 20:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
This article has tons more secondary sources than primary sources... Why? Seeing that we are supposed to simply display the facts and let the reader decide for himself, which is difficult to do when all which has been studied are books containing the opinions of other people--even if their account is considered reliable. Joseph Smith ordered the compilation of the History of the Church, six of these seven volumes describe his life alone. This is not even referenced once, which is pitiful. Bushman and Quinn are referenced at least 50 times, but what makes these other accounts any less applicable to not even be included? Using so many secondary sources is evidence alone how the article has been slightly biased--simply by placing emphasis on certain subjects such as polygamy.
It also does not make any differentiation between civil marriages and sealings and references to the rules prescribed to those involved in plural marriage. Men were required to get their wife's permission before taking on a second marriage. Joseph's story of him being a money-digger is a little different: " In the month of October, 1825, I hired with an old gentleman by the name of Josiah Stoal, who lived in Chenango county, State of New York. He had heard something of a silver mine having been opened by the Spaniards in Harmony, Susquehanna County, State of Pennsylvania; and previous to my hiring of him had bee digging in order if possible, to discover the mine. After I went to live with him, he took me and the rest of his hands, to dig for the silver mine, at which I continued to wok for nearly a month, without success in our undertaking, and finally I prevailed with the old gentleman to cease digging after it. Hence arouse the very prevalent story of my having been a money-digger." - Joseph Smith-History 1:55 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuel Clayton ( talk • contribs) 18:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
This article includes Bushman's and Vogel's "arguing" how Joseph originally viewed God. But this conflicts with Joseph's supposed first vision: "It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other--This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!" - Joseph Smith, History 1832 this is before1835
"I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father..."- June 16, 1844
This is how I would explain the concept which so often confuses people outside of the church including myself. Joseph Smith equated Jehovah with Jesus Christ God of the Old Testament. Several prophets viewed Jehovah in the Book of Mormon: Mohonri, Jacob, and Nephi all spoke with Christ prior to his birth, when he was a spirit. Joseph Smith taught that Jehovah was our spirit brother which was chosen as Elohim's (Heavenly Father's) only begotten son. Joseph Smith taught that God created the earth through Jehovah(Jesus) by the power of the Holy Spirit, and likewise this is how Mormons worship God the Father through Jesus Christ. They are not of one Body but of one Glory. "Let us make man in our image"- Genesis 1:26 Jehovah the God of the Old Testament and Jesus are the same person in the Mormon religion so Bushman and Vogel are both right in technicality, but not when it comes to clarification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuel Clayton ( talk • contribs) 20:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
It has been suggested on the good article review page that we include a bibliography of Joseph Smith's writings in this article. There are, of course, issues with listing works such as the Book of Mormon, which followers believe was in fact not written by Smith, or the Doctrine and Covenants, which followers believe were revealed to him by God. Issues aside, I think it's a good idea. Discuss. ...comments? ~ B F izz 21:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I think it could be easily done using phrases such as "published" or "translated what he claimed to be" ... .
96.51.55.125 ( talk) 03:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
User:Weaponbb7 has written the following in his review of the article:
“ | l would consider incorporating more of the Origin of Latter Day Saint polygamy as this seems to be minimized. Incorporate Criticism of Joseph Smith, Jr. into the prose. As these seem to have been minimized or left out entirely. | ” |
Should we consider introducing a "criticism" or "controversy" section into the article so that these key topics are not "minimized"? I personally do not see any main topics in the two articles mentioned that are not also duly treated in this article. Discuss ...comments? ~ B F izz 21:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I went ahead and revised the "Impact" section a bit to include not just the Mormon view deifying Smith, but also a brief discussion of the controversies he stirred in New York/Pennsylvania, Ohio, Missouri, and Illinois. I think that is also part of his "impact". I know this is covered in detail elsewhere in the article, but maybe this would help silence the criticism that the "Impact" section is unbalanced. Comments or suggestions are welcome. COGDEN 00:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I absolutely agree with the Wikipedia editor who requests a review by "someone with more expertise on this subject" before this article gets a good article rating.
I don't know anything about Mormonism, but this article clearly contains material that hss been added by vandals in an attempt to make Mormons look like superstitious idiots. Huge parts of it are taken from a "South Park" episode specifically designed to mock Mormon beliefs.
I would ask knowledgable Mormons to edit this article, removing this insulting nonsense and presenting the actual beliefs of their faith. Mardiste ( talk) 21:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you Mardiste for speaking up. Some of us LDS have expressed the same concern, and it's nice to have it validated that it isn't merely a bias of ours since an outside voice sees it too. 173.180.116.53 ( talk) 16:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
I'm quite disappointed in the discourtesy shown Mardiste. It is clear that his statement, "I don't know anything about Mormonism" was simply meant as an open courtesy to help identify his POV. But some who did not agree with his POV, instead of listening and respecting his opinion have jumped to merely discredit him. Very poor form. 173.180.116.53 ( talk) 03:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
I've emailed some BYU professors and asked them to review the article according to Wikipedia policies and good article criteria. Part of the email was as follows:
“ | The Joseph Smith, Jr. article at Wikipedia is undergoing review for "Good Article" status. Wikipedians (volunteer editors at Wikipedia) disagree about the neutrality of the article, some saying it is too pro-mormon, and some saying it is too anti-mormon.
Given your expertise on the subject, would you kindly consider reviewing the article and giving your input, anonymously or otherwise? |
” |
I also provided them with links and promised that if they choose to provide feedback through me that I will keep it anonymous unless they indicate otherwise. Perhaps one or more of them will be able to help us to improve the quality of the article and provide the "knowledgeable Mormon" viewpoint that has been requested. ...comments? ~ B F izz 20:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Wow, I think I owe everyone a big apology for starting this thread. I swear to God, this is actually worse than the time I invited the two terrified subliterate 18-year-old Utah farmboy virgins (oops, I mean "Church Elders") into my house to discuss theology. I thought they would have at least had a basic knowledge of the books of the Old Testament. This is just really sad. Mardiste ( talk) 22:32, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Mardiste, I'm quite disappointed by this post. Referring to a companionship of LDS Missionaries as you do above is uncalled for. I took your initial post on good will, but I am now confused by whatever point you are trying to make. Your attempts at suggesting you are a better individual because you knew the books of the Old Testament remind me of when Mark Twain was told by a friend “Before I die, I plan to make a pilgrimage to the Holy Land. I will climb to the top of Mount Sinai and read the Ten Commandments aloud.” Replied Twain, “Why don’t you stay home and keep them?” I'd rather side with those two Elders who were likely trying to live what is taught in the Bible to the best of their knowledge than with someone who knows it inside and out but still acts with rudeness and contempt for his neighbors.
173.180.116.53 ( talk) 07:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
I have some concerns with the wording,
"He saw his teachings and the Church of Christ as a restoration of early Christian ideals that had been lost in a great apostasy. At first, the power of Smith's church rested mainly on religious experience and charismatic authority, with little sense of hierarchy."
Regardless of the sources these statements are highly debatable.
First, Smith did not see the Church of Christ as merely "a restoration of early Christian ideals" he saw it as a restoration of the actual early Church (thus the return of Peter, James and John, the senior apostles following Christ's death and resurrection, before the organization of the Church to restore Priesthood and presiding authority).
Second, the power of the Church did not rest on "charismatic authority" it rested on restored authority.
Yes, I know most don't believe that, but it would more accurately (and fairly) read;
"He saw his teachings and the Church of Christ as a restoration of the early Christian church that had been lost in a great apostasy. At first, the power of Smith's church rested mainly on religious experience and Smith's declared authority, with little sense of hierarchy." 173.180.116.53 ( talk) 16:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
Thanks for your input John. As to the second point I'm confused. The way it reads to me is that in the early days (after the Church was organized) Joseph presided by appealing to his own charisma and not to the authority he stated he received from God. I don't deny many were drawn to his character (charisma) but I'm not sure it can be said absolutely that that is where the "power of the Church [rested]."
Perhaps the problem is with the term "Charismatic Authority" which is a confusing term (there is even confusion on the WP page discussing the term). Is there a better way this could be phrased so as not to confuse?
173.180.116.53 ( talk) 22:49, 21 August 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
I tried to follow the Quinn reference and can't find an active link to his 1994 book on early Mormon heirarchy. Do you have a link? If not, how does he evidence the claim about a merely charismatic authority? 173.180.116.53 ( talk) 23:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
Thanks COgden. Looking deeper though, it seems to me that Quinn's position is speculative at best. There is as much, if not more, evidence suggesting Smith acknowledged, and did appeal to, restored authority even before the organization of the Church. In June 1829 at Fayette, New York, Joseph Smith received (stated) as D&C 18:9,
"And now, Oliver Cowdery, I speak unto you, and also unto David Whitmer, by the way of commandment; for, behold, I command all men everywhere to repent, and I speak unto you, even as unto Paul mine apostle, for you are called even with that same calling with which he was called."
Further in April 1830 Joseph revealed (stated) as D&C 20:2-3;
"Which commandments were given to Joseph Smith, Jun., who was called of God, and ordained an apostle of Jesus Christ, to be the first elder of this church; And to Oliver Cowdery, who was also called of God, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to be the second elder of this church, and ordained under his hand;"
I don't expect anyone to take my side on this one, but it is only fair to remove the "Charismatic Authority" statement until we have better agreement. As I said, at best this one is debatable, and so it should be removed until the evidence is more reliable.
Respectfully, 173.180.116.53 ( talk) 00:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
Hi John,
Thanks for the change. I respect your point on relying solely on Joseph's words. My point in the Doctrine and Covenants reference wasn't based as evidence such that because he said it it is true. I was merely using them as evidence based on timing. The fact that such was taught by Smith as early as 1829 and again in 1830 (I doubt there is much dispute as to the timing of these teachings) conflict with the position that Smith relied solely on his charisma for authority.
Your improvement now reads;
"At first, authority within Smith's church rested largely on his own charismatic personality and religious experiences."
Would anyone have problems with it reading;
"At first, authority within Smith's church rested largely on his charismatic personality and his own stated claim to apostolic succession (D&C 20:2-3)."
All this seems to do is identify what is meant by the term "religious experiences." I think this accepts the fact that, whether or not one accepts Smith's claim to apostolic succession, he himself justified his role as presiding elder based on his claim to divine authority.
173.180.116.53 ( talk) 06:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
"At first, authority within Smith's church rested largely on his own charismatic personality and religious experiences."
From our edits, the meaning of this sentence has evolved from talking about the authority of other people within the church to solely Smith's authority within it. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe Foxe (or COgden) sourced Quinn there talking about the former, not the latter.
The sentence should read "At first, Smith's authority within his church...". Or, if we're talking about other people's authority within his church, then how can their authority "rest on [Smith's] charismatic personality and religious experiences"? I'm running into either a superfluous sentence (wouldn't his authority come from the fact that it's "his" church?) or a non sequitur. ...comments? ~ B F izz 14:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
COgden. I commend you for your knowledge on this stuff. I think the problem I am having is that the great majority of people reading the article will be confused by the term "Charismatic Authority (CA)" If by it you mean Joseph claimed authority based on visions or revelations and not physical succession (i.e. laying on of hands), that is debatable but I'll grant it may be the case. But if so that needs to be made plain for the Wikipedia readership. I still contend that leaving a confusing phrase like "Charismatic Authority" in there is not helpful towards a fair understanding of most Wikipedia readers.
Wikipedia describes "CA" as "resting on devotion to the exceptional sanctity, heroism or exemplary character of an individual person, and of the normative patterns or order revealed or ordained by him."
I don't think Smith taught that it was he revealing 'X' to the Saints, as much as it was what God revealed to him. Thus, God (Jesus Christ) is the source of the Charismatic Authority (or so Joseph appears to have recorded).
Wikipedia then goes on to say, "Charismatic authority is one of three forms of authority laid out in Weber's tripartite classification of authority, the other two being traditional authority and rational-legal authority."
Translation here seems to be that the term itself is confusing even among the experts and even if used would need to be broken out according to its context. COgden, you seem to know what the intricacies of how the early authority unfolded, I wonder if you could come up with a better phrasing that is more clear (and hopefully shorter).
Sincere thanks, 173.180.106.108 ( talk) 20:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
COgden,
I know that throughout Christianity the term 'charismatic' might have unique meaning, but this article is not for religious readers only. I would prefer your proposal of "authority derived from visions and revelations" as it avoids jargon.
173.180.106.108 ( talk) 00:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
Thanks, Padillah. Excellent recommendation.
173.180.106.108 ( talk) 20:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
Another problem with wording here. Under theology of family it reads,
"Smith taught that the highest exaltation would be achieved through "plural marriage" (polygamy),[354] which was the ultimate manifestation of this New and Everlasting Covenant.[358] Plural marriage allowed an individual to transcend the angelic state and become a god[359] by gaining an "eternal increase" of posterity."
I've read through the reference to Foster and found nothing to suggest that the highest exaltation is exclusive to participants in plural marriage. She does infer that as celestial marriage brings the highest exaltation, then multiple celestial marriages would enhance or expand such. But this does not exclude non-participants in multiple marriage from the highest exaltation.
I suggest a correction to,
"Smith taught that the highest exaltation could be achieved through eternally sealed marriages (including plural marriages) performed by Priesthood authority,[354] which were the ultimate manifestation of this New and Everlasting Covenant.[358]These marriages allowed an individual to transcend the angelic state and become a god[359] by gaining an "eternal increase" of posterity."
173.180.116.53 ( talk) 17:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
Thanks COgden. For the prominent sources following, the issue here is that the text seems to imply that Smith taught that the highest exaltation available is exclusive to plural marriage participants. This is not accurate as the highest exaltation has always been taught to be available to those marrying one wife as well. Whether or not plural marriage is "particularly exalted" (how much higher can the highest exaltation go?) or was taught as such is a bit of a fringe issue when it is already stated clearly that plural marriage could lead to the highest exaltation. Especially given the fact we are looking to shorten this article up.
173.180.116.53 ( talk) 17:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
COgden, upon further reading, all I could find in which Foster says plural marriage is a higher exaltation revolves around the logic (not necessarily mine) that since the main work of exalted beings will be the increase of posterity, they will be more efficacious with multiple spouses. Even if this assumption is true it still does not alter the reality that there does not seem to be sufficient evidence that Smith taught specifically that the higher exaltation is exclusive to only those who enter into plural marriage. 173.180.116.53 ( talk) 17:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
I don't argue with what Joseph or Brigham may have said to those being encouraged (called?) to enter into plural marriages. But I still don't see any exclusionary evidence. I just don't think Foster's point warrants the wording as it stands (i.e. giving the impression that Joseph taught that non-polygamists could not achieve the highest of exaltation). It's a horrible analogy but I think of two people invited to a feast (one skinny, the other very large by weight). I don't question that one might enjoy the feast more, but the reality stands that both will be "fully" blessed. I see nothing in what Smith taught collectively to dispute this position. I'm not asking that Smith's teachings be ignored, just that they be used in a context which is not confusing or unintentionally misleading. Smith never taught that only polygamists would achieve the "highest exaltation." You could argue that he taught they would be more effective or satisfied within their exalted state, if so that is the way it should read in the article.
i.e. "Smith taught that based on the expanded celestial family structure those accepting polygamy would realize even greater (joy/efficacy/success/blessings) as exalted beings."
That seems to be what Foster and you are saying, so is there anything wrong with saying something like that?
It is just a start, and I don't say I even agree with it, (something about the nature of an infinite eternity, what is infinity times 3, and my feeling that family design is not a numbers game or a race seems to this post-polygamy LDS guy to make me feel quite comfortable with one celestial mortgage) but it is still better (IMHO) than it stands now.
173.180.106.108 ( talk) 21:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
Thanks, Padillah. Good point.
So, I'm comfortable with, "Smith taught that based on the expanded celestial family structure those accepting polygamy would realize even greater success as exalted beings."
COgden, can you find a Smith reference for this? 173.180.106.108 ( talk) 15:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
COgden. I'm a little confused here. I understand how Foster's argument about exaltation works. But I think he might be reading a little more into what Joseph believed or taught than is really there. In what I have read it seems more like Joseph was merely teaching that the exaltation of those who were directed to participate in plural marriages was just as conditional as those of us today who are capable of entering into temple marriage. I don't doubt (or believe) Joseph might have discussed the "Foster Logic" as encouragement to those hesitant to enter into plural marriage. But I think this confusing speculation of how much exaltation one receives would be better discussed in the article "Mormonism and Polygamy."
Kindly,
173.180.106.108 ( talk) 22:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
Respectfully COgden, I think we're into a semantic deadlock. The term 'Exaltation' here seems to be used as a verb and a noun. I lean towards the understanding that it is most commonly used by Joseph and his followers as a noun. If you were to ask most LDS what is meant by the term, they would likely respond that it is, in itself, the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom. Whether it is the top third of the Celestial Kingdom is not the point, but that it is the inheritance (noun not verb)of eternal progression is the best understanding we seem to receive from Joseph and his followers.
You state that the common understanding in the Church is that exaltation is more a process, I disagree. No I don't disagree that it is also a process, but I do hold that it is primarily an achievement or an accomplishment. Thus Elder Legrande Richards' quote that "To a Latter-Day Saint, salvation without exaltation is damnation." And Elder Russell M. Nelson's quote that, "To be exalted—or to gain exaltation—refers to the highest state of happiness and glory in the celestial realm."
Again, I commend your knowledge on the subject, but I still say that Joseph never intended to imply that only through polygamy could Saints inherit the "highest heaven," or a higher degree within it.
But it seems we are at a mere stalemate here and so I will step away from the topic if you wish the article to stand as is. 173.180.106.108 ( talk) 22:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
This article has been disputed heavily with regards to it's neutrality. Some of these are old, but some are relatively recent. What is the consensus, is this article stable and neutral enough to be a GA? I would appreciate it if someone could give an up-to-date statement regarding the neutrality debate. Obvious neutrality is a clear requirement for a GA. Reviewer: ~ Gosox( 55)( 55) 17:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Gosox,
I'm a bit of a vocal outsider here so take my input for what it's worth.
From my position the article is quite inflammatory in overall tone (thus the frequent input by myself and others highly offended in the LDS community), long, over-sourced, and dependent on unstable sources. Many argue that Brodie is the most prominent on the subject, but as many would gladly source another researcher with less academic baggage (much speculation on her methods and bias). The other researcher cited frequently is touted by contributors as a faithful Mormon, yet this is a red herring as the majority of his research (in his book "A Rough Stone Rolling") was purposely aimed at finding the subject's flaws. This does not exclude his research but does beg the question about balance in the article. I know there are many who would like to see this article GAed as recognition of their efforts, but I think we need to remember this is not an article about pomegranates, it is about an important religious figure to a large faith community, and prudence and sensitivity should be considered before expediting this article's approval prematurely.
Thanks.
173.180.112.66 ( talk) 17:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
For what it's worth, I'm a non-Mormon (in fact, a "never-been-a-Mormon") who believes this encyclopedia article is about as unbiased and nicely balanced as any piece about Joseph Smith can be. I wish to be respectful here, but I think what Weaponbb7 interprets as pro-Mormon bias stems from his own lack of familiarity with the literature.-- John Foxe ( talk) 20:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Ok I knew i have some flack from people who worked so hard on it and have done a pretty desecent job. this is normal type of reaction is normal
"sectarian ferver of their day" its not the type of language that is not good in a Encyclopedia its very flowery language. There is a fair bit of flowery language here which could be reduced to more simple and precise words. "well-to-do neighbor"
Below the Infobox in there is Template that says says "This article is part of the series Joseph Smith, Jr." Than list the subjects "the polygammy" and "Criticism" Among other things sections that were left out of the article. I do not know why these two were left out but they were so i have to question why? leaving those two out seemed odd to leave out I had to question why?
"Legacy" seems an odd choice of words for a section it makes it sound like the page is memorial.
Classic example of language I am concerned about "Historians regard Joseph Smith as one of the most imaginative, charismatic, and controversial leaders in American religious history." Its stated but this needs to be expanded as it is not clear to me reading it what is "imaginative" about what he has done? and again why is he "controversial leaders." this could substatially expanded by a few paragraphs.
"On matters of public policy, Smith favored a strong central bank and high tariffs to protect American business and agriculture. Smith disfavored imprisonment of convicts except for murder, preferring efforts to reform criminals through labor; he also opposed courts-martial for military deserters. " is complexly uncited could use citation. critical Commentary might involve some scholarly Analysis of his action Stephen A. Kent wrote a good one a few years ago that might be useful as an example or as a useful reference
I would argue that "Some Scholars" is weaselly... just name the scholars who say so!
Over all I think this article is pretty good. The Actual Biography portion of his life is so well done I can't find anything wrong with it. I think I will give this the thumbs up once the flowery language is cleared up and the legacy section is rewritten to include the scholarly analysis of him. Weaponbb7 ( talk) 23:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
An example of the type of commentary I would look for: http://caliber.ucpress.net/doi/pdfplus/10.1525/nr.2010.13.3.34
[14] This is the kind of stuff i might be looking for Weaponbb7 ( talk) 23:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
There's a Second Opinion request and two reviews, and there appears to have been no activity on the GA Review for over a month. Who is actually doing the review? And is a Second Opinion still requested? Speed is not the priority in a GA Review, and if the review is still in progress that is fine, though an update comment would be useful at this point. SilkTork * YES! 16:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't mean any offense, but when Weaponbb wrote,
"This article has some severe flaws with bias as it lacks critical commentary of this figure."
I was left wondering if he had read the right article. This whole article is nothing but a critical commentary.
Polygamist? treasure-hunter? Exorcist? Tried as disorderly? Power-grabbing? Military leader in retreat? "Dirty"? "Nasty"? Poor financial oversight? Intimidating? Pillaging? Media suppressor?
And that's all in the first half of the article! You can believe all that tripe, but surely you can't suggest the article lacks critical commentary. If that's praise, I'd hate to see what criticism is.
Is there anyone here that would argue that the majority of the references sources are not critics of Joseph? The only one I can find who is not cynically critical in their research is Bushman, and his writings were purposely aimed at finding Joseph's flaws. So Brodie gets to write, fair. And LDS Church Historians are excluded based on a sensitivity to POV, arguably fair. But for anyone to then suggest the article is not critical enough after all that?
My input is that this article has a strong structurally negative bias. I don't lay the fault so much with the contributors, as much as the framework of sources on which Joseph Smith's life has been myopically defined. Until the 1970s, the only academics who seemed to be writing (the consensus here is often that, unfortunately, Brodie is the best we have) about Joseph Smith had strong negative biases. And when you then take out the acceptance of LDS sources it is not surprising the article reads more like an expose'.
So my two bits. This article may be on hold for a few years until it can be fundamentally reworked. No, I do not expect it to look like a Mormon pamphlet. But, yes, I expect it to go back to the drawing board until there are more reliable historians (not merely anti-Mormon or even pro-Mormon cynics) who are not writing because they have an axe to grind. The problem is not the contributors, the problem is not the good will to balance this based on the evidence. The problem, I think, is with the very limited availability of reliable AND unbiased research.
Fawn Brodie was actually right when she wrote, "No man knows my history." And as Nibley referred to her research, "No, Ma'am, that's not history."
Feel free to slag a great religious leader, just take a little time before you do to notice the dove on top of the discussion page.
Canadiandy1 ( talk) 06:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
COgden,
Unfair. I never said that all non-Mormon writers have an axe to grind. But I do think that the majority of evidence written about Joseph Smith before the 1970s was inherently based in a 'love him/hate him' paradigm. Neither do I "...suspect the motives of anyone writing about Mormonism who isn't a firm believer." Your words, not mine. It was Charles Dickens who wrote,
"But I went on board their ship to bear testimony against them if they deserved it, as I fully believed they would; to my great astonishment, they did not deserve it; and my predispositions and tendencies must not affect me as an honest witness, I went over the Amazon's side, feeling it impossible to deny that, so far, some remarkable influence had produced a remarkable result, which better-known influences have often missed."
Last I checked Dickens was not a Mormon.
But forgive me a fair academic skepticism when I ask individuals writing on Joseph Smith the following;
1. What is your motivation in writing on Joseph Smith? 2. What will you use as your evidences and sources? 3. When you come across unproven or speculative evidences, how will you address them?
As an example, my non-Mormon father is in the process of writing a book on the history of Louis Riel. I asked him why, as there is no family/religious/historical connection whatsoever, he would write on such a topic. His reason is that since Riel was a polarizing figure, most of the histories he has read are founded in a positive or negative bias. As he is not on either side of the history he feels he would make a better writer on the topic for that very reason.
I think this is a perfect parallel to the problem with this article. Joseph Smith researchers may attempt neutrality, but their sources are largely drawn from wildly biased sources (those who loved him enough to write, or those who hated him enough to write). And no, I don't even blame the Mormon haters for this paradox. It's not a question of who's right and wrong, it's a question of when are we going to look for better sources that the 'poisoned tree' we've been eating from for so long.
One of the discussions we (I, sorry) debated for a long time related to the number of wives Joseph Smith was purported to have had. While DNA testing has yet to prove a single offspring from Joseph (except through Emma) the old records are given preferred treatment. I don't expect people to agree with my religious beliefs, I do expect the historians and contributors here to have the courage to admit that not enough is truly 'known' about Joseph to fly this article as an accurate depiction (Good Article) of who Joseph Smith was. It seems amazingly Quixotic to do so.
You make the point that several "scholars all cite each other, and everybody cites them." I suspect if we sat them down and asked them if they were happy with the quality of evidence available to them they would say pretty much what I'm saying here, It's too bad Joseph Smith was such a polarizing figure, because it's hard to know which, of any of the early chroniclers can be trusted. And those that are worth their salt would be saying something like, we're just scratching the surface of Joseph Smith, the only thing Brodie got right is when she quoted Smith's own words, "No man knows [his] history."
Hey, look. A windmill.
Canadiandy1 ( talk) 01:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
The image File:JosephSmithTranslating.jpg appears to be a modern photographic interpretation by a non-notable person of Smith's use of seer stones. As such, it's unclear why it should be included here at all.
I also find it strange that most the historic illustrations lack captions that clearly state their origins, something that seems especially important for images produced by the LDS-movement itself.
Peter Isotalo 23:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I must admit, Peter, I am also confused by your stated objections to this image. Do you think the idea of sitting on a chair, resting your elbows on your knees, and covering your face with a hat is too difficult a position to re-imagine? And I'd dearly like to know what bias is implied by rendering an image of someone doing exactly what the description said they were doing. Graves is irrelevant because the existence of this free image has rendered his drawing unnecessary. It's not an interpretation of that work - it's an interpretation of the description provided by eye-witnesses. How is the origin of a photograph self-explanatory? You don't expect me to believe that you can tell who took a photo simply by the look of the photo, do you? I have no idea what your examples are supposed to represent. I found no illustrations in any of them much less attribution (except for a single Mozart painting). Please help us out by explaining your position in more depth. It may be self-evident to you but I'm missing the point completely. Padillah ( talk) 18:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I am sure we can take it at face value, but I don't know about those reading the article who follow the links for a source. We shouldn't assume that all readers are contributors. The simple solution is to have it attributed to 'anonymous' or to 'relative of the contributor formerly known as John Foxe' or simply a cool symbol like the artist Prince used. :-)
The best image I've found is at http://www.imagesoftherestoration.org/blog/?p=8 . While I prefer the LDS stock photo at http://freebookofmormon.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/bom_translation.jpg , I realize it isn't juicy enough playing to the whole hat thing. I mean if we're looking for true accuracy what about the type of pants he would have been wearing? I agree with the last image (the one that looks like there is some weird glowing happening) being not great (no offense, but it looks like it draws more on the Catholic stylizations with the aura type thing depicted visually). I have no problems with Catholic art, gotta love the Sistine Chapel, it just doesn't seem to fit the depiction of a leader of a restorationist religion.
No offense meant, John, I know you meant well. I just think honesty here about our impressions are in order. I didn't hate it because it portrayed Joseph in a bad light, I just didn't like the art. Too cartoony or something. Canadiandy1 ( talk) 23:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
John, your bias is showing again. I would respect an individual writing that the LDS image was inaccurate (critical opinion, but valid). But to write that it is "deliberately deceptive" makes me think you are looking to stir the pot here. How could you know the motivation or intent of the artist or publishers of the work? Please realize that when you write in such a manner it lessens your credibility. If you took offense at my dislike of the painting of your relative please realize it is strictly a dislike of the product, not the process or its creator. Apologies if I have offended.
Canadiandy1 ( talk) 05:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
Thanks again for being a true neutral voice here Padillah. I personally don't want to have anything to do with encouraging the author of "Images of Restoration" as he appears to be a bit of an anti-Mormon hack. In an effort to be neutral though I'd understand those in the community here contacting him for copyright. The contact links are all there.
Canadiandy1 ( talk) 05:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
The one thing we seem to agree on here is the need for the scribe to be portrayed. COgden and BFizz may have hit on what it was that was so unnerving about the picture. Without the fuller perspective it is a man, alone, looking depressed or closed, hunched over and looking (crying) into something. I say fix it, replace it with something else, or leave it out until we can find something better. Canadiandy1 ( talk) 05:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
I am sorry I said it that way, I hadn't made the connection it was family when I did, John. Even then, I never took art in High School so I humbly admit a High School kid would do better than me, any day. And even if I could draw, I've said before that the fixation on the fact Joseph looked into a hat to translate is only relevant because it sounds juicy. If Joseph had written in pencil with a box of kleenex nearby nobody would care because it wouldn't be controversial. That said, I feel I have respected both sides of the issue in a neutral manner by accepting 'an' image of Joseph Smith using a hat, I just don't think it should be 'the' image we have at present because it is confusing in its effect and perspective. That's me putting on my 'neutral' hat.
I actually find the fascination with the fact Joseph Smith used a hat to help him focus during the transaltion process odd. I mean, has anyone ever found convincing evidence to suggest Joseph thought the hat had mystical properties. That might make it relevant. Until then I think of this fixation with hats as either spin, or something akin to Imelda Marcos' fixation with shoes.
My hat's off to a guy who could dictate such an amazing text with no notes (if he had them they'd have been unreadable in a covered hat, right). Canadiandy1 ( talk) 00:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
So why then would we focus on the hat, and not the seer stone? A good image should be a summary of the process. Like showing the closet door of Imelda Marcos' shoe collection instead of an actual pair (or multiple pairs) of her shoes. As I see it the process involved Joseph viewing the stones, dictating what he saw, and then the words clearing when he had translated correctly. Him looking into a hat is secondary (and possibly trivial) to his described process. So either, a) include a replica or artistic depiction of the seer stone, or b) put in a picture of present-day Liberty Jail instead and include (or maintain) a correct depiction of the translation textually. I don't mean to belabor this one, but it seems common sense to me. I also sense a desire for improvement but a lack of desire or priority to make the needed change. So I'll let this one go for now. I just want to make the observation that there is dissatisfaction with it and that it remains on the to do list for improving the article.
Summary, I don't like it, most of us don't, but I can wait until we fix it later.
Canadiandy1 ( talk) 01:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
John Foxe. I think you're misreading between the lines. I was not being critical of anyone when I commented that I sensed "a lack of desire or priority to make the needed change." If anything the statement was meant to reflect the fact that while nobody is saying it, my priorities might not be those of everybody and I may be the one beating the proverbial dead horse. I apologize if I didn't make my point more clear, in essence it is "Let's move on." But if we are discussing courtesy and respect here, I believe it is generally impolite to speak in imperatives (i.e., "Take Cogden's description to your high school...").
As to COgden's wish that the stone(s) were displayed publicly, not me. I think it would just be another media frenzy and something our enemies would mock. If they are there, keep them there, I say.
And 40 000? What does the number of people who view something have to do with its validity? Of those 40 000 viewing the page easily half scrolled over it. Of those that saw it maybe half knew what they were looking at. Of those, maybe half cared about the relevance. Of those, maybe half viewed the image as believable or an accurate depiction... Canadiandy1 ( talk) 01:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
I don't think many LDS believe that Smith translated through an intellectual capacity. We commonly accept Cowdery's words that the Book of Mormon was translated "...by the gift and power of God". So while I agree there is purpose in identifying that Joseph translated independently (except for the use of a scribe) through a "claimed" spiritual gift, I don't think the hat is at all relevant. And no, I don't expect other contributors to agree with me. But at the same time, I will take issue with the argument that the hat is of some great significance. COgden seems to have the only valid argument, in that it was the receptacle of the seer stones and thus hid the stones from sight. But even this suggests that the hat image is at best problematic. So while some would argue that it is the only way to represent the process, I disagree. It would be better described (as it already is) textually.
Still, I'm not going to belabor this, I thank you all for your input and general civility. I just felt I should voice my concerns over the image selection. My opposition remains, but my respect for the process does too, so I can let this one go until another season.
And thanks for the apology, John. Fully accepted. Again, I suspect any angst began with my mistake in being so vocal in discrediting the image's creation and so is likely deserved. My bad. Canadiandy1 ( talk) 00:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
Postscript: Looking back at the LDS image, I see how Padillah might think the intention was that the translation was strictly an intellectual one. If that is the case it is unintentionally misleading. But as this is part of the LDS Gospel Art Kit, (GAK 416, CH) one should recognize its intended audience is attending Church members including children. And I'm sure COgden would agree that you'd be lucky to find 1 in 100 LDS members who believe Joseph translated the plates through a mere intellectual capacity. So when LDS see Joseph looking on the plates, there is a given understanding that (whatever the specifics of the process) he is in the spiritual process of receiving direct revelation. The difference is that the artist here is focusing not on a hat, but on the points of greater importance; 1. That Joseph was the sole translator. 2. A scribe was used during the translation process. 3. That the process was in a closed setting (i.e. not publicly displayed). 4. That the translation was of Plates of Gold. There is nothing misleading about the image when seen from its proper audience and context. But if you put Joseph alone, in a chair, with the plates nowhere in view, with no scribe, and no context for how many, if any are in the room, you'd have a lot of LDS scratching their heads in confusion. Canadiandy1 ( talk) 00:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
@StormRider - the argument you pose assumes the historicity of the Bible. You are asking us to take the Bible at the same face value as Bushman and even Smith himself. I'm sorry but, I can't support that kind of argument. If you can find a history of the Christian Bible or the Bhagavad Gita that comes close to Smiths own words where the Book of Mormon are concerned then you'd have a point. But to take umbrage because we wish to take Smith at his word doesn't seem like a very valid argument. Padillah ( talk) 12:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I still believe the image to be questionable from several perspectives, but since there seems to be no consensus for removing it, I would like to bring up the need to describe it properly. The image has only had a cpation describing the subject of the image itself. That would seem acceptable if it was a photography or something similar. However, since it is an artistic image was made by a non-notable person and an interpretation of a religious-historical event, I believe it should be more clearly labeled, as per WP:NPOV. I do not believe this detracts from it's illustrative value, and it makes it more acceptable to those who are skeptical to its inclusion in the first place. Since none of this information can be considered obvious, I believe it reflects the intentions of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (captions).
I tried to add such a caption at the beginning of this discussion, but it was reverted due to the reference to the Clane Graves image that figured earlier in the discussion here. I've tried to add a slightly amended version that avoids mention of Graves that I believe to be neutral in description without adding excessive or destracting details.
Btw, I would really recommend that John Foxe added a more truthful description to the image metadata at Commons. Currently, it omits information that has been discussed here, and which is generally considered a requirement for image inclusion.
Peter Isotalo 13:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Peter, your changes to the picture captions were discussed earlier and you did not participate. I have no problem discussing them again, but this time you need to take part in the discussion. Furthermore, the burden of proof lies with the editor wishing to make a change, so the captions should remain as is until that consensus can be determined.-- John Foxe ( talk) 18:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm having a hard time with your logic Foxe. First of all whether there is or isn't a WP rule that something should be added doesn't mean it can't. Wikipedia rules don't say we have to add this picture. This seems to be a unique situation (an alias who is the major article contributor commissions a family member to do a modern interpretation of a historical event at which the artist was not present and is relying on the contributor for details). Also, I would argue about using the term 'consensus.' There may be a majority, but there are substantial contributors who clearly disagree. In essence, both parties are not in agreement.
207.216.52.116 ( talk) 16:49, 9 October 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 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | → | Archive 20 |
Thank you Cabe, that's a small start. I'll go over just a few of the other erroneous statements in the article...as an example of what I'm talking about concerning the overall poor quality of the article:
"With his family, he took part in religious folk magic". Hmm, I don't see that written anywhere in Church literature. Sounds like a fabrication to me. What's more the link of "religious folk magic" just points to a WP article about "Folk religion" which makes no mention of the word "magic". As Rider mentions above "magic" is commonly seen as close to or the same thing as sorcerery. The Holy Bible's New Testament denounces sorcerers and sorcereries to be of Satan. Seems as though this Bushman author is not so neutral after all...
another bad sentence: "both his parents and his maternal grandfather had *mystical* visions...". Yea, this is another play on words. The word "mystical" in most societies is held in close proximity to those who practice magic and those who will read your palm and tell you your future for money. It is just an innapropriate word that is used in a calculated way to discredit what they said was their personal revelations from God. Once again, this description is absent from Church manuscripts and personal journals of the members of the Church.
Anonymous poster, I'm sorry I don't know what you're referring to when you say "He conned the gullible into believing he could find buried treasure, swore he could see letters on gold plates by looking at a stone in his hat, and lied repeatedly to his wife about his additional "wives," a couple of whom were fourteen." Those must have all been made-up by someone's imagination. I don't find those statements anywhere. He did translate the plates by way of what are called the "Urim and Thummim" which he said were prepared by the hand of the Lord for this purpose. But he didn't say the stones were in any hat, and he never used them to try to find "treasure". The plates already had characters on them but it was in a language nobody there could read. The plural marriage thing is true, and by Joseph's own account 'the commandment by God to practice it was one of the most unwanted and difficult things he ever had to do.' He said this was in fullfillment of the prophecy by ancient prophets that "in the last days there shall be a restoration of all things". This would include what Mormons believe the Lord commanded ancient prophets to do for His own purposes which it is speculated that it was to multiply the righteous people in the earth, especially when war killed off many men. In any account the message from Joseph on the subject is very clear: it was a grievous and sore trial/test that many did not make it through. In my opinion it put undue tensions on his personal marriage at a time when all a normal men would have wanted in such a scene of mob violence, hatred, tensions, and responsibility for the well-being of thousands of people would have been to escape or to have peace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve200255 ( talk • contribs) 05:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your thoughts, but I'm not expressing hate just educated reason, no, not including the apocrypha, those books would be the 1-3rd century equivalent of a Billy Graham book at best and Da Vinci Code at worst. Educated research has pretty much cemented that those books have questionable authorship, which removed the books from the discussion early on. There has been serious and educated thought and research put into the accuracy and preserves the books that are "god breathed" and which are not, we have documented evidence from the early christians stating that the rule of thumb was books and letters from the apostles and close companions, we know that Peter read Paul's letters as copied by recipient churches and he supported Pauls teaching, the Bible encourages intellectual scrutiny of the scriptures to identify false teachings and false prophets as they will arise. The old testament we use today consists of all the same contents as Josephus recorded. There are just no grounds for what Joseph Smith claims in the realm of Christianity, Christ himself stated he was here to make a new covenant, reason states that if he was divine as he claims, that it would make no sense to come but hide all the real truths till 1800 yrs later. Non-mormon research just doesn't show how or where this Great Apostasy could have occured. Please study 1-3rd century christianity to learn of the individuals and their motives and methods to have a better understanding of the point of view. Ezra Taft Benson stated that Mormonism would never be for those who cared about manuscript evidence or for the intellectual or the rich. Just as there are plenty of good hearted Mormons who really believe in Smith, there are many others who have done honest research in the bible, nothing to do with anti-mormon stuff, and don't believe that the God of the Bible would create a secret message on gold plates hundreds of years after Jesus and then take them away so noone can see the evidence. Jesus showed Thomas the holes in his hands because his own apostle doubted, the current nonexistance of the plates from which the Book of Mormon came from just isn't characteristic of the God described in the Bible. -- Alan355 ( talk) 18:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Padillah, thank you for your thoughts, but please don't mistake brevity for ignorance, without a signed photo stapled to the front of an original MS all authorship is somewhat questionable. This doesn't change the fact that there are 27 books in common with minimal MS variants and universal acceptance. I was referring to the impressions of the 1-3rd century christains opinions concerning the origin of said NT, 20 of which had documented universal acceptance by the mid 2nd century. Reference scholar Dr. Kurt Aland, and mormon scholar Richard Lloyd Anderson, and Joel Groat among others. As to the rest of my statement it was an explanation and I apologize, I will keep all further posts regarding this article.-- Alan355 ( talk) 21:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Read here some of what the official "Church History" says that Joseph Smith Jr. said about his own experiences. It contrasts heavily with what Quinn and Bushmen and other sources used here say:
Joseph Smith History (extracts from the history of Joseph Smith, The Prophet. History of the Church, Vol. 1, Chapters 1-5)
Can be found online here: http://scriptures.lds.org/js_h/1
Corrections to the Wikipedia article both in wording and in substance:
Concerning the obtaining of the record written on gold plates and the seer stones. These are key sentences and phrases applicable to this discussion throughout the reference. After Joseph was visited and ministered to by a messenger (who called himself Moroni sent down from the presence of the Lord, and who was the same being who had sealed up the said record during his own mortal life and buried it for protection from the apostacized and the other wicked) about the whole night he felt exhausted and had little strength left to go about his daily chores. From this setup we read: Joseph Smith History 1:48-54 " I shortly after arose from my bed, and as usual, went to the necessary labors of the day; but, in attempting to work as at other times, I found my strength so exhausted as to render me entirely unable. My father, who was laboring along with me, discovered something to be wrong with me, and told me to go home. I started with the intention of going to the house; but, in attempting to cross the fence out of the field where we were, my strength entirely failed me, and I fell helpless on the ground, and for a time was quite unconscious of anything. The first thing that I can recollect was a voice speaking unto me, calling me by name. I looked up, and beheld the same messenger standing over my head, surrounded by light as before. He then again related unto me all that he had related to me the previous night, and commanded me to go to my father and tell him of the vision and commandments which I had received. I obeyed..."
and then we read "convenient to the village of manchester, Ontario country, New York, stands a hill of considerable size, and the most elevated of any in the neighborhood. On the west side of thie hill, not far from the top, under a stone of considerable size, lay the plates, deposited in a stone box..." "...having removed the earth, I obtained a lever, which I got fixed under the edge of the stone, and with a little exertion raised it up. I looked in, and there indeed did I behold the plates, the Urim and Thummim, and the breasplate, as stated by the messenger. The box in which they lay was formed by laying stones together in some kind of cement. In the bottom of the box were laid two stones crossways of the box, and on these stones lay the plates and the other things with them."
Then "I made an attempt to take them out, but was forbidden by the messenger, and was again informed that the time for brigning them forth had not yet arrived, neither would it, until four years from that time; but he told me that I should come to that place precisely in one year from that time, and that he would there meet with me, and that I should continue to do so until the time should come for obtaining the plates. Accordingly, as I had been commanded, I went at the end of each year, and at each time I found the same messenger there, and received instruction and intelligence from him at each of our interviews, respecting what the Lord was going to do, and how and in what manner his kingdom was to be conducted in the last days."
Do you see any contradictions in either tone or in fact regarding what these authors said and what you read here? Joseph said 'I was forbidden to take out the plates'. This is very different from the violent imagery 'struck down with force'. I ask that this be corrected in the article.
In other parts of "Joseph Smith--History" it says that under difficult financial times he became employed by a man who mined silver. This is in stark contrast to "treasure-digging". I wonder what that means anyway...treasure-digging. Does Quinn think Joseph was trying to find a pirate's buried treasure? Hahaha, wow I don't know who could believe anything Quinn says just from reading that statement alone. Obviously the object in mind for the author Quinn is to get the reader to believe that Joseph Smith Jr. was some guy fascinated with and obsessive about finding treasure by way of digging, thereby introducing the idea that Joseph may have fabricated the whole Book of Mormon recorded on golden plates. Typical anti-mormon word play. I request that the article read what is recorded in the said reference that Joseph Smith became employed by a silver mining company, briefly, and that he did so only because there was no other employment available to him. That's what he said in his own journal.
I have issue with another word used in the article near the beginning "cosmology". This term is defined as the study of the universe. I don't think this is an appropriate term because the word is used in science and not in religion. In fact, the word makes a reader think of the word "astrology" which is connected with "mystical" and "metaphysical" and "magic" and "fortune telling" which, as mentioned is popularly associated with demonology. Again, a calculated word placed to get a reader to discredit the man. I ask that it be removed. Just one more proof of the slant of this article.
another bad phrase: "That summer, after the Nauvoo Expositor criticized his power and new doctrines, such as plural marriage, Smith and the Nauvoo city council ordered the destruction of the newspaper as a nuisance." This omits critical information, thereby leading a reader to believe Smith was a tyrannical ruler. I ask that a more correct and appropriate description of the scene substitute what is currently in the article with something from a source like this:
"...A posse had come for Joseph and Hyrum that morning warning that the governor had promised to garrison troops in Nauvoo until the brothers submitted to arrest. 6 The brethren were told that the people of Nauvoo feared what the troops might do. A discussion ensued. At its end, Hyrum said, “Let us go back and give ourselves up, and see the thing out. On the morning of Tuesday, June 25, events moved rapidly. Joseph and Hyrum, charged with riot for the June 10 destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor press, surrendered themselves to Constable Davis Bettisworth in Carthage despite being acquitted earlier on related charges. Nauvoo City Council members, feeling that the press threatened their lives and liberties by inciting mob violence against them, had ruled, within the rights they felt were granted by the Nauvoo Charter, that the newspaper was a public nuisance. As directed by the city council, the Prophet, acting as mayor, had then ordered the marshal to destroy the press. The whole countryside was in a state of confusion. Mormons feared and distrusted their enemies, and their enemies feared the power of the Mormons if provoked. Rumors bred rumors. Armed men practiced military drills everywhere. Day after day men crossed and recrossed the Mississippi River from Missouri as attacks upon Nauvoo were planned and canceled" ("Martyrdom at Carthage", Reed Blake, Ensign, June 1994)
As I have just proven this WP article is completely one-sided. Someone mentioned the value of a "fair and balanced" approach using all sides? I just proved this article is completely one-sided, and not in favor of what the historical figures wrote about themselves. I would have thought this should have raised a red flag to everyone. Glad I'm bringing it up now then.
Alanyst said that we should seek to reflect all viewpoints to give balance. Bfizz remarked that the article is not written from "a believing perspective". That's just the point, its entirely written from "a dis-believing perspective". All one-sided, calculated to discredit Joseph Smith Jr. as a person, as a prophet, and as a good man. Not only that, it seeks to do the same to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints. It's aim is to leave a bad taste in the reader's mouth about the prophet and the church. So you're going to have to insert my suggestions into the article to start to give the article a more balanced feel. Someone said that "Bushman can't be credibly called an anti-mormon". I beg to differ. I don't care what the man is called, his views and incorrect historical accounts are exactly in line with all anti-mormon literature. Bushman may be a Mormon himself, but all the biggest anti-mormons have been or think they still are. I have come across individuals who desperately wanted to join the church for the express reason of being in a position to have more clout to renounce the Church. That's how dedicated some anti-mormons are. Bushman is anything but neutral.
That's all for now, that's just a start. This lengthy post was all neccessary to shed some new light on the subject. I would like the requested actions to be taken though to give the article more balance from the opposing viewpoints. Steve200255 ( talk) 04:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Padillah you're absolutely right about the size of that post. I guess I thought the people on here lacked information and so I went overboard. Won't happen again. Also, I apologize if I offended or insulted anyone, but it seems that my people are the only ones being attacked here. Some here may claim that I'm talking from an opinionated standpoint but that in and of itself is a big claim to make. Is it not? Just because I believe in the doctrine doesn't alienate me from this discussion. Just because I have an opinion doesn't make my statements opinionated. I speak from a factual standpoint. If you want to say I'm talking in a biased way you're just going to have to give some examples. I'm talking about real history here. To claim that the Church is slanted has never been proven in any way. In theory, as you say, the Church has an incentive to slant towards itself with biased edited histories, but you have no way of proving that. I'm sorry, but you're making a huge blanket statement. You need to support that argument with facts. If you want to claim that no neutral or factual information about LDS church history can come from the LDS church or its members, that it's impossible then you're automatically plunging yourself into the literature of anti-mormon people. They dominate that market in hordes. They never call themselves anti-mormon, of course, just as you wouldn't call yourself anti-mormon. SOME of these people individualy might not hate the church but all their sources can only come from one of two places: The Church/members, or those who only heard bad stuff about the church from anti-mormon people. Back then, because of this, there weren't any neutral people. And, unfortunately they are the only sources. So this idea of an ideal neutral source, as you define it, is a fallacy. Sure I know all about the Brigham Young Adam/God doctrine and the Meadow Mountains Massacre and the supposed insurrection against the United States. You must think that I'm an idiot not knowing about this stuff while being a member. Padillah, if you want to correct people on insulting others it would be good not to insult them in your reply. Accusing me of not being able to think for myself, one who is fooled by his church, an ignorant person. That's quite an insult to my intelligence. But I'm not suprised when you read what you read thinking it is neutral material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve200255 ( talk • contribs) 19:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
ok, the rules say: "cannot be published by the church or its members" for a source to be reliable. This means that all references attributable to Richard Bushman must be deleted. Steve200255 ( talk) 20:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Hey Steve, You may notice that your concise, respectful, and well thought out input is quickly attacked as 'Mormon Point of View." That is the trend here on the article. Notice too that while you did not mention any specific individuals, merely the content and its bias, that you are quickly attacked for being disrespectful and ranting. Methinks the cynics doth protest too much. Seems you hit a sensitive nerve. I too tried to play by the rules in pointing out the glaring bias in the article but quickly gave up. The group dynamic here is pretty well entrenched and closed. Case in point, notice Padillah's comment that, "...you can't be as intelligent as you claim and still think the Church is perfectly honest and forthright in all it's dealings." Hmmm, you can't? So contributors must be apostate or at least hesitant in their beliefs? I don't think I've read anythng more cynical or ridiculous. I guess assuming good faith applies to everyone unless they are Mormons, their leaders, or their Church.
And as to Foxe's complaints about reliable source, here that means any reliable source that does not portray Joseph Smith in a good light. What it is supposed to mean is the source, the text, and the publisher must be reliable. Simply saying Joseph Smith is unreliable because you aren't LDS (or quoting from mostly unreliable and biased sources of skeptics who don't believe him either) is the worst bias and unfair. Yes, they'll argue Bushman but only use his writings which portray Joseph negatively. Remember, Bushman set out to identify Smith's normal human flaws because he was tired of the these were unfairly portrayed by other Smith critics. And still he concludes his writings with some beautiful insights into the incredibly principled and brave man Smith was, all of which is conveniently absent here.
If Brodie (a lady with serious personal issues who was in love with Thomas Jefferson) is reliable, Smith is reliable. Smith's writings, in context, are reliable. And the publishers (usually the Church) would only be argued as unreliable by enemies or biased cynics of Joseph Smith. So Joseph is a reliable source, his writings and history are reliable, and the publishers are reliable. It is for Foxe to prove (not merely state POV) otherwise, and he isn't doing a very convincing job especially given his stated bias against the LDS Church. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.180.110.164 ( talk) 14:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I better run, I'm on a hiatus from posting because I was taking too much flack and found the process of contributing a pointless waste of time. I remain here, sitting under my troll-bridge.
Word of advice, spend your nights with your family. Leave this article to the controllers of the article, remembering that time is on the side of truth. The dogs may bark, but the caravan rolls on.
199.60.41.15 ( talk) 02:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
This is what I have gleaned from reading this: Steve has valid concerns about the article. We need to address those concerns. Some of his concerns are not valid - but we should extend the courtesy of a meaningful explanation. Foxe needs to elaborate on what he thinks was/is not a reliable source regarding Steve's comment. Steve and Padillah should probably not engage eachother on whether or not Joseph/The Church 's teaching were correct. Let us talk about how to make the article better in a NPOV kind of way. Thanks. -- Suplemental ( talk) 19:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Padillah, apology fairly accepted. The problem is what was revealed in your statement, "You can't be as intelligent as you claim and still think the Church is perfectly honest and forthright in all it's dealings." See it reveals a clear bias against the LDS Church and its integrity. I don't fault you for holding such an opinion. That's your right. But the truth is either that the LDS Church is honest in its dealings, or it's not. But when you speak from such a biased position it taints every contribution you make to this article as suspect. Wikipedia says we should assume good faith, but if I meet a guy on the street carrying a sign reading 'Joseph Smith is a Liar,' don't expect me to put any money in his jar. Please remove yourself from contributing until you can approach the article more fair-mindedly or with a lot less bias. 173.180.110.164 ( talk) 01:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
I agree with Suplemental's direction to go from here. I'll respond to a few comments briefly. First, I never meant to sound or be contentious here, just trying to get a fair academic-type representation of the man called Joseph Smith Jr.. That's all I want or expect out of a public forum. To say that I'm expecting people to believe in Joseph Smith to be a prophet is simply not true. I've only talked about what are facts and who can be relied upon to deliver those facts--reliable sources in other words. In the eyes of the world and WP we must deliver these facts by way of secondary sources whenever possible, so as to prevent the claim that someone is lying to us out of their own bias and self-seeking interest. Our subject in this WP article is unique in several ways in that biases could be deemed to be just as strong against the man as they were for the man. Proof of this lies in the universally recognized incessant mob violence against him on the one hand, and those who gave up all they possess to follow him on the other. So the burden of the proof of a NPOV source is significant, in the eyes of the world. Is my logic ok so far? I will go a step further and postulate that those who were in those mobs, at the time, were not quiet in their opinions given the knowledge that mobs do not form unless there is outspoken public disdain. So now we have proof of regular and intense outspoken loud public disdain against the man called Joseph Smith Jr.. Popular opinion is a seed bed for bringing others onboard. So non-witnesses and total strangers now have a very strong perception that the man called Joseph the Prophet is of the worst sort of humanity on earth. Even before they come accross him they hate him. Is it any wonder that they found evil in the man looking through those kinds of lenses? Have you ever known someone to unfairly judge another person just because they already hated them? Is anyone here getting the notion that finding a neutral second source will be difficult?
Given all this we need to discuss what seems most easy to me to resolve here: what to do whenever Joseph Smith had a lone experience. Take, for example, the multiple visitations of the angel Moroni to Joseph. From a WP requirement and from an entirely skeptical perspective we need to get a second witness to speak up about it. The problem is there is no second witness. What do we do then? If you read any of my really long post above you will find a stark contrast between what Joseph Smith himself said (found in preserved journals and manuscripts from the time) and what others say happened who were never there (the current WP article). Steve200255 ( talk) 06:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Steve200255, this is a very good point, I would think the best way handled that would be to add the word “claimed” for all lone experiences. This is a neutral word so as to indicate it isn’t a documented fact but a possibility. Just because no one is around when you hit a hole in one doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.-- Alan355 ( talk) 21:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
By the way, another statement has been overlooked. If the attitude of "anything that isn't for the Mormon church is against it" is assumed to be a guiding principle, this article will never satisfy the strong adherents of the church. That's because a truly neutral page will be seen as "not for the church" and thus be termed anti-mormon. This article is actually not that unusual, except for the number of strong-willed people it tends to attract: in other words, it's a simple case of conflict of interest and verifiability policy that prevents us from using something from Joseph Smith himself as a reliable source. It's worth keeping in mind that WP:V and WP:RS are two of the 5 pillars that Wikipedia is organized around. This article is no exception to those principles, no matter how strongly people may feel about ensuring a specific version of The Truth is portrayed. tedder ( talk) 12:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for coming out and calling us "whin[ers]" again, Tedder. Your statement that, "This article will never satisfy the strong adherents of the church," clearly reveals a prejudiced and unfair bias. "Never?" Did you really mean that? Do you really believe that? I think you will find the LDS people quite fair-minded. What you will also find is we are generally a highly-educated people who are smart enough to recognize when something is not right. But since you're in charge around here, I'll climb back under my "troll" (your word not mine) bridge now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.180.110.164 ( talk) 14:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I would like to give my bit in this:
Routerone, please be careful with your rhetoric, using a phrase abominable lies and manipulative tricks is very similar to what you seem upset that the LDS and Smith are accused of. Please give specific changes you would like made. This article is not an envangelism tool it is an intellectual compilation of documented material about Smith’s life. -- Alan355 ( talk) 21:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
All due respect to those complaining about how they've been treated but, is there a citable source in our future? I've not been on this page for very long and I've been the subject of personal attacks and had my beliefs called into question. How about we stop talking about editors and start talking about edits? Now, having said that, please understand that there is no impetus for accepting primary source material except in special circumstances and there is a difference between a citation and a belief system. That said, I implore someone (I don't care who) to propose an edit and cite it's source so we can improve the article. Padillah ( talk) 17:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I would be happy just once to hear someone say the following;
"Hey Canadiandy. You, Steve, and Routerone have some very valid concerns. The fact that you and so many other LDS people (FAIRLDS, Steve, Routerone, yourself...) are so offended by this particular article makes me think maybe we should seriously look into it. I see how heavily this article draws from research collected by old school historians with an axe to grind or with no sensitivity to your faith as a formal religion. You're right, most (if not all)other religions are afforded a greater respect and tolerance than seems to have been here historically. I see that you are not merely "Whin[ing]" but are expressing frustration with the original tenor and cynical direction this article's framework was originally built on. I see that it is not merely a few small details that can be ironed out over a short period of time but an entire rethinking of the article that is likely needed. I also understand fully why you might feel so disenfranchised by the process. So, seeing we need to start hacking at the roots and not merely the leaves of the problem, what do you and any neutral researchers suggest we might do?"
As opposed to the now cliche rebuttals;
1. Quit whining. 2. Suggest a change (which we will belabor for weeks or simply revert) or shut up. 3. Joseph Smith is not a reliable source, his enemies are reliable because they are secondary while those who liked Smith don't count as they will obviously be biased. 4. Don't be so rude, remember assume good faith (even if it from those who are rudely hostile towards your own faith). 5. Why are you complaining, COgden is LDS and he doesn't have a problem with it. 6. We use Bushman and he's LDS (even though we only use the 'bad' parts).
The biggest waste of time would be to bury our heads in the sand and pretend that this is really close to a "Good Article" and we'll fix this by arguing over the word 'supernatural.' We need a huge paradigm shift or we'll continue on in this bizarre and cyclical Catch 22.
My serious proposal is that we revert back to , and begin again. It was much shorter, more concise, and much less biased. Seems pretty fairly neutral from where I stand. 173.180.110.164 ( talk) 03:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
Okay, BFizz, randomly I found the following;
"During the next four years, Smith made annual visits to Cumorah, only to return without the plates because he claimed that he had not brought with him the "right person" required by the angel."
Am I the only one who can see the cynicism dripping in this one? The phraseology, "only to return without" as opposed to "returning each time without" lends negative commentary. And if it is him claiming it, why the need to put the "right person" in quotation marks. This lends the tone that we have to question anything Smith says directly even when it is already qualified with the phrase "he claimed."
I think if you really deconstruct this thing neutrally it will become quite apparent this is an unfairly designed and written article as it stands. So now, will you please carry through with your promise and aid us in a fresh start?
Who else is willing to stay on if we start from a do over with the original article (29 Aug 2003) as the starting point?
173.180.110.164 ( talk) 06:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
Whether or not we are doing a fresh start: about the specific example I opened up in my last post...does anyone have any ideas about how to proceed? I would really like discussion on this. Canadiandy, your question assumes we have already accepted the authors Quinn and Bushman as reliable authors who used reliable second sources in their works. As you can read above, there is another account that says Smith said no such things. So lets first establish who can reliably speak for Joseph's lone experiences. Does this sound like a good way to go forward? Please, my question is repeated a third time. What does the community say on this topic? Steve200255 ( talk) 07:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm getting claims from all over the place that I am frustrated or I think I'm being treated unfairly. Also people are saying that I'm looking for a "faith promoting" article. That's obviously false. I originally came on here complaining about this stuff but have since started only talking from an editorial viewpoint. I think I made it clear. All I see from an editorial perspective is conflicting accounts about events. A real editor would recognize POV problems on both the inside as well as the outside on this particular subject. You can't put a WP rubber stamp approach by saying all outside journalists and authors are reliable. This subject is not like 99% of what WP usually covers. Here we have a phenomena occuring largely within a single country in which those who had good experiences with it joined it and those who had bad experiences hated it. Therefore all witnesses of the good experiences are automatically nullified under WP rules as you seem to say. From a neutral standpoint I see many problems with that. Am I off in that thinking? I mean I really do appreciate neutral outside sources whenever possible but on the same token I don't want to be taken by a non-neutral source either. Frankly I'm afraid by the fact that nobody here has acknowledged that. As if no one here wants to admit there ever existed bias against Joseph Smith in the entire published works of the world...as if academic presses would be immune. No one has ever lied about Joseph Smith. It's not smart not to question these things.
Concerning the question I just put forth; Padillah has come up with a common sense solution in talking to you John. All we have to say is that "Joseph claimed" this and that. Obviously, the readers will know that these statements are not backed up. This is the least that can be done. Any legal document, any news report, any piece of historical information always has what the person claimed or said. The article cannot leave those out. This isn't "faith promoting" this is just common sense of any editor writing about any person. Steve200255 ( talk) 19:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Much of the critical nature is the result of contemporary peer review of Smith’s life’s work. Apparently many of his comtemporaries considered him to be similar to modern day Jim Jones or David Karesh, and the modern existence of his established religion doesn’t erase the fact that his contemporaries viewed him as such, and as that is from secondary source and critical examination it holds at least some historical significance which is why some is cited here. There must be some material that can be used to accomplish your goals that fit the criteria, though I don’t know of any. Whether or not he actually was a prophet is a matter of faith which belongs in a religious discussion not an encyclopedia article. Using ‘claimed’ sounds like a great solution, and when there are conflicting reports as to what Smith claimed on different occasions, both should be recorded and noted as conflicting in the article.-- Alan355 ( talk) 21:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Anyone else want to try to come up with a different logical solution than Padillah's as to what to do about recounting Joseph's lone experiences? This might be the most critical question on this entire discussion page so far. Please comment. Steve200255 ( talk) 19:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
An unrelated note: the article is 164 kb long, which is 64 kb over the "split strongly recommended" size. I suggest Personal history vs. Distinctive views and teachings is a good splitting point. And that those section are WP:spinned out. Rursus dixit. ( mbork3!) 11:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Why?
For a careful and detailed analysis on this, see here: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]
There are, numerous problems with this page. This should never ever be a GA and its an absolute insult that someone had the idea to even think of nominating it. What an embarassment to wikipedia. Routerone ( talk) 10:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
There's an old wiki-saying to address your concerns, Routerone. SOFIXIT. Specific examples of what you feel is wrong are always welcome. FAIR brought up specific examples, and many have been addressed. ...comments? ~ B F izz 07:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the topic creator, this article is not close to being correct by any stretch of the imagination. It uses invalid references who used invalid references who used invalid references, etc. It's a mutual anti-mormon agreement society at work with the posted references. They all quote each other and also quote illegitimate "witnesses" who were actually just died in the wool Joseph Smith or Mormon haters. These include excommunicated Mormons (unrepentant sinners) who obviously would have gotten angry at the prophet for getting removed from the Church. What an obvious bias these people would have against Mormons and especially against Joseph Smith, Jr., and now they are believable sources??? How can historical truth be derived from such sources? It can't. That's why this article stinks, it is totally unbelievable. If you want to look up sources on the subject that meet the highest standards of world scholarly research refer to "The Joseph Smith Papers." It is a relatively new project that is coming out in annual installments that will eventually comprise 30 volumes. In it are photo copies of the original personal journal entries, correspondance, discourses and written histories, and legal and business documents of Joseph Smith written in his own hand and by the hands of those working alongside him. It beats the current references to published rumors.-- steve200255 ( talk) 21:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Understandably, everyone should be striving for historical authenticity using the "highest standards of world scholarly research", but in doing so we must consider that Joseph Smith did neither, and as such the Book of Mormon should be stricken as well. Much of the "embarrassing" evidence comes from mormon authors and BYU research. Many activities and lives of historical figures are not all admirable and it should be recorded honestly, embarrassing or not. If Joseph Smith was a fraud he should stand up to intelligent reason and study, if he doesn't then it should be recorded accordingly, that is the position of the Bible which he studied. Prophet or David Karesh, he deserves a fair study and we deserve honest answers.-- 12.109.196.226 ( talk) 21:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
In regards to the statement of Joseph Smith 'not adhering to' the highest standards of scholarly research that would be mixing apples and oranges. Obviously, a direct revelation or a revealed scriptural book cannot employ the methods of scholarly research to justify its own truth or validity. So I'm not sure what that statement by anonymous person could mean. Yes, I absolutely agree with what I think anonymous meant to say 'If Joseph Smith was a true prophet he should stand up to intelligent reason and study...". I'm pretty sure editors here are only supposed to look for facts and write in a proper tone, not making unjustifiable conclusions. In contrast, injecting personal feelings or qualifying historical events by what an editor feels is "embarassing" is not really material to this discussion.
As far as what I see as a need for specific corrections to the article I see there are no quotes from Joseph Smith himself. That's funny, this is a history and condensed biography of the man, shouldn't some of his own words be displayed? And for this, who could be trusted to have his own words recorded correctly? The Church with its preserved original documents or some outside source? FYI there is a very large difference in what the said Church has recorded as his words and what Quin and some of these other authors say are Joseph's own words. I've thought of the possibility of the Church altering Joseph's words to make them look better, but then that doesn't make sense given the question: why would the Church want to alter the recorded words of a man who obviously got many to follow him saying what he said? Editorially, I can't think of how the Church's records wouldn't be a lot more accurate than outside sources. In addition there is quite a difference between what editors on here summarize as Joseph's words and what the Church has recorded as what he said. LDS.org has the Church's records and links. Steve200255 ( talk) 17:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
I've requested outside opinions regarding the article's neutrality at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity#Help requested at Joseph Smith, Jr. ...comments? ~ B F izz 03:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks BFizz.
////Canadiandy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.180.110.164 ( talk) 06:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Ouch. Did you compare the tenor of the article with those of other non-mainstream Christian articles (i.e. Seventh-Day Adventists, Jehovahs Witness, Masons, or other leaders, i.e. Luther, Mohammed)? Could you please also look onto one aspect of the problem, if you have time. Read or even scan Bushman's "Rough Stone Rolling." It is the only "Pro-LDS" (in quotation marks because it is only cited as pro-LDS because the writer is himself LDS, most LDS would, including Bushman himself now, would not view his writing as Pro-LDS but as academically neutral at best) writing that seems to be used more than a few times. And if you read the book you will likely identify that his research is cherry-picked. When he writes on Smith's weakness that is included, when he does not it is ignored. It is unfair that the only LDS writer who is accepted is one whose writing focus was to identify Smith's flaws. I don't see any anti-LDS contributors whose focus was to find the good in Smith's life. 173.180.110.164 ( talk) 14:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
It's not "what's said about Luther, Mohammad", and others that is relevant. It's how it's said. It is the tone of respect and dignity which forms precedence for courtesy and respect for their topic. Again you are speaking with an inflammatory tone when you write things like, "Fawn Brodie, the bête noire of the LDS Church... ." The Church leadership has not paid much, if any, attention to her as an individual at all. They have on a few minor occasions addressed her works, but have been quite respectful of her academic privileges. The only people who really know much about her at all are member academics like Nibley and such. The reality is that with so much mud that's been slung at us over the past 150 years we pretty much ignore it all. When I step outside my LDS perspective though, in the interest of social justice, I think it should not be so.
I love reading about the town of Quincy Illinois that took in Pioneer Saints while everone else around them was driving them out for their religious beliefs. I've read about Quincy. I have ancestors that went through Quincy. Folks, this is no Quincy.
It's up to you now, Bork. 199.60.41.15 ( talk) 19:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
Sir, Smith was an inflammatory individual in his time, this article reflects that and still inflames people. That reaction is more (though not necessarily) indicative of the man than the quality of this article. Many of the events in his life are reasons for which so much good and ill intentioned ‘mud’ is around. The crusades are a black eye on catholicism but it happened, murdered women and children in the streets of Jerusalem, it looks bad and reflects the state of the religious organization of the time, but it happened. Smith may look bad historically and we need to be open enough to say maybe it’s accurate and looking bad could indicate truth just as much as a POV. Not trying to make the comparison but Hitler orchestrated the holocaust, if mud is thrown at his historical impact by contemporary critics it would be deserved. Please recommend changes or sources you think fixes the problem. -- Alan355 ( talk) 21:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Of course there would be whole issues of BYU studies devoted to Brodie's writings. She is, as you say, prominent. But you would be just as critical of the Church if BYU did not discuss Brodie's writings so your point is empty. If you read your own quote, even it is referring to the study of her work, not her personally. BYU is an accredited University with tenured professors and still you are inferring the Church (not BYU professors or individual members)somehow singles her out as a "bête noire." If you mean certain individuals, fair. Say that. But not the Church. That is totally untrue. And please be civil, referring to my concerns as sentimental musings is condescending and seems out of line with the five pillars. 173.180.110.164 ( talk) 23:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
What evidence and names does Bringhurst provide in reference to these mysterious "spokesmen" who stepped up attacks against her? Or is he relying on Brodie's own testimony of the fact? I'm not surprised the Church responding to her writings (remember many non-member critics were highly critical of Brodie) but what proof do you have to back up your words that the Church was discourteous towards Brodie personally as you implied. 173.180.110.164 ( talk) 05:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
Huh? The only direct reference to Brodie made in any of these reports is Widtsoe. And all he says is her book (again her work, not her) "should be of no interest to Latter-Day Saints." I hardly see how this justifies you or Bringhurst (who himself states to have had a "Literary affair with Fawn M. Brodie" no bias there, hey) making the claim that Brodie is (not 'was') the (not 'a') bête noire of the Church or "attack[ed]" by its spokesmen. As to the book review, it seems perfectly in line with what other non-mormon reviewers were saying about her book (i.e. she cherry-picked her findings to prove her hypothesis). I don't see how that qualifies as an attack on Brodie herself. Should the reviewer have lied (calling the book good to avoid conflict)? Or if he had not reviewed Brodie's book (to silence it) she would likely have seen that as an attack as well. Doesn't Bringhurst allude to that on page 107 (FMB: ALB)? 173.180.110.164 ( talk) 16:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
This is getting heated, John. Clearly, you seem to feel Joseph Smith is an evil man and that the article is bang on, while I think he was a man of great integrity and that the sources and contexts here have been choreographed almost as much as Brodie's and the biographer who 'Fawns' after her. You can take comfort in the fact that most people here are agreeing with you at present and so I'll back off before this turns into a wall of text. 199.60.41.15 ( talk) 18:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
Thanks for the offer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.180.110.164 ( talk) 16:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
The articles on Idi Amin and Nixon are both GA too. I doubt I'd call those people reliable sources. Hey, didn't Brodie actually do a bio on Nixon detailing his having a gay lover? I don't seem to see that tidbit on the Wikipedia article, nor is she included as a source there. And I don't see her writings on Jefferson on Wikipedia. In fact, it seems the only time her extensive professional work is ever sourced is when she is writing on Joseph Smith, and then she's a prominent, reliable source. So, her extensive Nixon research isn't noteworthy. Her extensive Jefferson research isn't noteworthy. But her exposé on Joseph Smith is embraced as the forefront, most prominent work on the subject. Perhaps when this article can find more reliable and stable sources (remember prominent does not necessarily mean reliable) that did not need psychotherapy, it will have a better chance at GA. 173.180.112.66 ( talk) 16:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
Thanks, Rursus, for your input. I don't really see what could be improved for the "impact" section, it is intentionally there to illustrate the positive light that Smith's followers see him in, and always uses phrases like "to Latter Day Saints", "the Saints believed", and "Mormon leaders began teaching". ...comments? ~ B F izz 22:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
This article has been listed at WP:Good article nominations for about a month. Due to the backlog, reviewers have not yet gotten to this article. If any of you have the spare time, please help review other unrelated articles to help clear the backlog. Just thought I'd mention. Thanks, guys. ...comments? ~ B F izz 04:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
This article has been disputed heavily with regards to it's neutrality. Some of these are old, but some are relatively recent. What is the consensus, is this article stable and neutral enough to be a GA? I would appreciate it if someone could give an up-to-date statement regarding the neutrality debate. Obvious neutrality is a clear requirement for a GA. Reviewer: ~ Gosox( 55)( 55) 17:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Gosox,
I'm a bit of a vocal outsider here so take my input for what it's worth.
From my position the article is quite inflammatory in overall tone (thus the frequent input by myself and others highly offended in the LDS community), long, over-sourced, and dependent on unstable sources. Many argue that Brodie is the most prominent on the subject, but as many would gladly source another researcher with less academic baggage (much speculation on her methods and bias). The other researcher cited frequently is touted by contributors as a faithful Mormon, yet this is a red herring as the majority of his research (in his book "A Rough Stone Rolling") was purposely aimed at finding the subject's flaws. This does not exclude his research but does beg the question about balance in the article. I know there are many who would like to see this article GAed as recognition of their efforts, but I think we need to remember this is not an article about pomegranates, it is about an important religious figure to a large faith community, and prudence and sensitivity should be considered before expediting this article's approval prematurely.
Thanks.
173.180.112.66 ( talk) 17:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
For what it's worth, I'm a non-Mormon (in fact, a "never-been-a-Mormon") who believes this encyclopedia article is about as unbiased and nicely balanced as any piece about Joseph Smith can be. I wish to be respectful here, but I think what Weaponbb7 interprets as pro-Mormon bias stems from his own lack of familiarity with the literature.-- John Foxe ( talk) 20:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Ok I knew i have some flack from people who worked so hard on it and have done a pretty desecent job. this is normal type of reaction is normal
"sectarian ferver of their day" its not the type of language that is not good in a Encyclopedia its very flowery language. There is a fair bit of flowery language here which could be reduced to more simple and precise words. "well-to-do neighbor"
Below the Infobox in there is Template that says says "This article is part of the series Joseph Smith, Jr." Than list the subjects "the polygammy" and "Criticism" Among other things sections that were left out of the article. I do not know why these two were left out but they were so i have to question why? leaving those two out seemed odd to leave out I had to question why?
"Legacy" seems an odd choice of words for a section it makes it sound like the page is memorial.
Classic example of language I am concerned about "Historians regard Joseph Smith as one of the most imaginative, charismatic, and controversial leaders in American religious history." Its stated but this needs to be expanded as it is not clear to me reading it what is "imaginative" about what he has done? and again why is he "controversial leaders." this could substatially expanded by a few paragraphs.
"On matters of public policy, Smith favored a strong central bank and high tariffs to protect American business and agriculture. Smith disfavored imprisonment of convicts except for murder, preferring efforts to reform criminals through labor; he also opposed courts-martial for military deserters. " is complexly uncited could use citation. critical Commentary might involve some scholarly Analysis of his action Stephen A. Kent wrote a good one a few years ago that might be useful as an example or as a useful reference
I would argue that "Some Scholars" is weaselly... just name the scholars who say so!
Over all I think this article is pretty good. The Actual Biography portion of his life is so well done I can't find anything wrong with it. I think I will give this the thumbs up once the flowery language is cleared up and the legacy section is rewritten to include the scholarly analysis of him. Weaponbb7 ( talk) 23:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
An example of the type of commentary I would look for: http://caliber.ucpress.net/doi/pdfplus/10.1525/nr.2010.13.3.34
[11] This is the kind of stuff i might be looking for Weaponbb7 ( talk) 23:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
There's a Second Opinion request and two reviews, and there appears to have been no activity on the GA Review for over a month. Who is actually doing the review? And is a Second Opinion still requested? Speed is not the priority in a GA Review, and if the review is still in progress that is fine, though an update comment would be useful at this point. SilkTork * YES! 16:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't mean any offense, but when Weaponbb wrote,
"This article has some severe flaws with bias as it lacks critical commentary of this figure."
I was left wondering if he had read the right article. This whole article is nothing but a critical commentary.
Polygamist? treasure-hunter? Exorcist? Tried as disorderly? Power-grabbing? Military leader in retreat? "Dirty"? "Nasty"? Poor financial oversight? Intimidating? Pillaging? Media suppressor?
And that's all in the first half of the article! You can believe all that tripe, but surely you can't suggest the article lacks critical commentary. If that's praise, I'd hate to see what criticism is.
Is there anyone here that would argue that the majority of the references sources are not critics of Joseph? The only one I can find who is not cynically critical in their research is Bushman, and his writings were purposely aimed at finding Joseph's flaws. So Brodie gets to write, fair. And LDS Church Historians are excluded based on a sensitivity to POV, arguably fair. But for anyone to then suggest the article is not critical enough after all that?
My input is that this article has a strong structurally negative bias. I don't lay the fault so much with the contributors, as much as the framework of sources on which Joseph Smith's life has been myopically defined. Until the 1970s, the only academics who seemed to be writing (the consensus here is often that, unfortunately, Brodie is the best we have) about Joseph Smith had strong negative biases. And when you then take out the acceptance of LDS sources it is not surprising the article reads more like an expose'.
So my two bits. This article may be on hold for a few years until it can be fundamentally reworked. No, I do not expect it to look like a Mormon pamphlet. But, yes, I expect it to go back to the drawing board until there are more reliable historians (not merely anti-Mormon or even pro-Mormon cynics) who are not writing because they have an axe to grind. The problem is not the contributors, the problem is not the good will to balance this based on the evidence. The problem, I think, is with the very limited availability of reliable AND unbiased research.
Fawn Brodie was actually right when she wrote, "No man knows my history." And as Nibley referred to her research, "No, Ma'am, that's not history."
Feel free to slag a great religious leader, just take a little time before you do to notice the dove on top of the discussion page.
Canadiandy1 ( talk) 06:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
COgden,
Unfair. I never said that all non-Mormon writers have an axe to grind. But I do think that the majority of evidence written about Joseph Smith before the 1970s was inherently based in a 'love him/hate him' paradigm. Neither do I "...suspect the motives of anyone writing about Mormonism who isn't a firm believer." Your words, not mine. It was Charles Dickens who wrote,
"But I went on board their ship to bear testimony against them if they deserved it, as I fully believed they would; to my great astonishment, they did not deserve it; and my predispositions and tendencies must not affect me as an honest witness, I went over the Amazon's side, feeling it impossible to deny that, so far, some remarkable influence had produced a remarkable result, which better-known influences have often missed."
Last I checked Dickens was not a Mormon.
But forgive me a fair academic skepticism when I ask individuals writing on Joseph Smith the following;
1. What is your motivation in writing on Joseph Smith? 2. What will you use as your evidences and sources? 3. When you come across unproven or speculative evidences, how will you address them?
As an example, my non-Mormon father is in the process of writing a book on the history of Louis Riel. I asked him why, as there is no family/religious/historical connection whatsoever, he would write on such a topic. His reason is that since Riel was a polarizing figure, most of the histories he has read are founded in a positive or negative bias. As he is not on either side of the history he feels he would make a better writer on the topic for that very reason.
I think this is a perfect parallel to the problem with this article. Joseph Smith researchers may attempt neutrality, but their sources are largely drawn from wildly biased sources (those who loved him enough to write, or those who hated him enough to write). And no, I don't even blame the Mormon haters for this paradox. It's not a question of who's right and wrong, it's a question of when are we going to look for better sources that the 'poisoned tree' we've been eating from for so long.
One of the discussions we (I, sorry) debated for a long time related to the number of wives Joseph Smith was purported to have had. While DNA testing has yet to prove a single offspring from Joseph (except through Emma) the old records are given preferred treatment. I don't expect people to agree with my religious beliefs, I do expect the historians and contributors here to have the courage to admit that not enough is truly 'known' about Joseph to fly this article as an accurate depiction (Good Article) of who Joseph Smith was. It seems amazingly Quixotic to do so.
You make the point that several "scholars all cite each other, and everybody cites them." I suspect if we sat them down and asked them if they were happy with the quality of evidence available to them they would say pretty much what I'm saying here, It's too bad Joseph Smith was such a polarizing figure, because it's hard to know which, of any of the early chroniclers can be trusted. And those that are worth their salt would be saying something like, we're just scratching the surface of Joseph Smith, the only thing Brodie got right is when she quoted Smith's own words, "No man knows [his] history."
Hey, look. A windmill.
Canadiandy1 ( talk) 01:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
Because few here will accuse me of being pro-Mormon, I have taken the liberty to revert a number of changes made by Tao2911. Tao did not introduce any alternate citations for his changes but simply rewrote sentences based on his own notions of NPOV. I'd be happy to discuss his proposals here if anyone's interested.-- John Foxe ( talk) 19:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
The passage and source read before that there was an essay "published over his name" in favor of slavery - this doesn't mean anything in our language. Reviewing footnotes, it seemed clear that what was meant was "under" his name, which means simply he wrote it (unless there is some dispute, which would then need further explication). He clearly later changed this view. In other words, he "came to oppose slavery." Simple English, friend. In addition, "strongly" here is not NPOV, since the strength of this stance is questionable in context, not to mention according to footnote that he continued to oppose abolition. Tao2911 ( talk) 20:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Foxe, don't argue in favor of antiquated speech - why would you argue in favor of not just saying simply that "he wrote"? I don't know his stance - I simply reviewed this article per its status as possible "Good Article" and I found a number of glaring peculiarities, questionable instances of non-neutral POV, and inconsistencies.
cogden, by your own explanation here, he wrote in favor of slavery. He later changed this opinion. He therefor "came to oppose it." Again, perhaps that view grew in increasing strength, but to say that God favored it, so he did to, is hardly a ringing critique of the practice. Don't add "strongly." I find it to be biased - no matter sources, which we are encouraged to rephrase to make for better reading in view of all sources, context. Likewise with the clear obfuscation regarding his having written in favor of slavery. You all agree he did so. I agree he changed this position. That is what passage now says. Let it ride. Tao2911 ( talk) 22:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
“ | Except for a pro-slavery essay published over his name in 1836, Smith strongly opposed slavery. | ” |
I've made a few edits in response to this revert. Each individual edit of mine has its own explanation. I would be happy to talk any of them over on the talk page as necessary. Note that I did not simply re-revert, but rather, in some cases, made adjustments/improvements. ...comments? ~ B F izz 07:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I'd just like to request that Foxe simply discuss individual points here, as agreed, before reverting to earlier contested versions of page. I explained with labels each of my edits carefully; if they are contested, please say so now here. Foxe has reached, or is close to, technical definition of edit war here, and no one wants be blocked. Tao2911 ( talk) 22:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up Routerone. I just thought John Foxe was a contributor. Can you explain where I can go to learn more about this 'arbitrator' role? The term is new to me. Oh yeah, while Tao is clearly not pro-Smith, I tend to trust his judgment based on his respect for neutral tone and religious sensitivity at the same time. I too would rather see this thing bare bones and neutral than a little kind and a whole lot offensive. He and I may not agree on religion, but I haven't read anything by him yet that suggests he is insensitive to our faith.
173.180.112.66 ( talk) 00:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
Where is this stated, please, that arbitrators are free from basic wiki etiquette? And why does he agree to discuss individual changes above, before reverting? Likewise, he may be arbitrator, but instances like using "published over his name" instead of "he wrote", and treating the word "prophet" as an objective category like "lawyer", show that no one has a corner on Wiki perfection or omniscience. Tao2911 ( talk) 22:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I suspect Tao is a newcomer. Albeit a sharp, intellectual, newcomer, but I suggest not biting. He's just frustrated as would be any newcomer to this article. Please show a little courtesy.
173.180.112.66 ( talk) 00:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
I sense some ill will here, Doc. Even though I've been off and on in the discussions here for several months I accept the label newcomer. I meant absolutely no disrespect when I referred to Tao that way, in fact I was coming to his defense. I was not aware of the fact he had been here for years and I noticed his user page was quite short and that is why I wrote I "suspected" he was a newcomer and to be nice. I will readily admit I was wrong. I notice your evil wink emoticon so I will assume you were merely giving a polite ribbing.
Canadiandy1 ( talk) 04:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
Thanks for sticking up for me Duke.
Canadiandy1 ( talk) 04:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
One of Tao's changes was very necessary, and I'm having problems finding the old discussion in the archive about it. Currently, the article states that Smith was a prophet. That's not a description that can be treated as a fact: most non-Mormons would dispute it, and many people would dispute that any prophets exist at all. I thought we had agreed on a softer wording for that.— Kww( talk) 00:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
First lines of a few more articles:
Context is enough. It seems natural for a variety of Wikipedians to write this way without batting an eye. Nobody is going to read the statement that "so and so is a prophet of ___" and suddenly think, "oh! Wikipedia says I should believe this person is a prophet!" Rather, they will think, "oh, this person is considered a prophet by believers in / adherents of ___". It's natural modern English usage of the word, imho. ...comments? ~ B F izz 15:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
This puts us right back at the "prophet" vs. "Prophet" debate again. I thought we decided to leave the reference to the position and title within the organization ("Smith held the title of Prophet...") Please correct me if I'm mistaken. I still hold that it should be left to the reader if they believe in prophets or not but referencing the title is correct and avoids the issue altogether. Padillah ( talk) 20:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't really care whether the wording is that Joseph was a prophet, believed to be a prophet or whatever else the focus is here. What I disagree with is the term that he is the 'founder' of the LDS movement. This disregards the belief by most Latter-Day Saints that it was Christ who established his Church through Joseph Smith. Perhaps a rewrite like, "To members within the Latter-Day Saint movement, Joseph Smith was a prophet through whom Jesus Christ established his Church." It seems respectful, neutral, and hopefully succinct.
Similarly, the phrase, "... he founded a church in western New York, claiming it to be a restoration of early Christianity." Would be better written, "...he organized in western New York a church that he claimed was a restoration of the early Christian church."
Again, this reflects the position that Joseph Smith believed he was organizing the Church under the direction of Jesus Christ himself. It also avoids the vague term "early Christianity" which is indistinct in scope and meaning. (i.e. the followers of Christ at the Nicene Council could be seen as part of early Christianity, but Smith would clearly suggest the Church's authority was no longer in force many years before that time. Canadiandy1 ( talk) 20:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
Thanks, John. One slight correction, from my research Luther did not believe Christ was the founder of his Church (unless you are referring to the Catholic Church which he worked passionately to reform). While Luther helped in the formation of a new religious Order (based in most ways upon the Catholic practices), the Lutheran Church did not seem to have been fully organized until some years later (yes Mormons often recognize Luther's inspiration) footsteps. And yes, I would welcome correction from any Lutherans as I am no expert here. In fact the term 'Lutheran' was a derogatory one as it was the practice of the Catholic Church of the day to name apostate splinter groups after their leader. Similar to how the term 'Mormon' was attributed to the LDS members. Likewise, Wesley (another man many LDS believe to have been inspired) remained an Anglican and never assumed an organized Church through his stewardship. But Joseph Smith recognized a stewardship in not merely shaping or reforming, but in acting as a chief steward (so to speak) in Christ's restoration of The Church of Jesus Christ [of Latter-Day Saints] and this makes him somewhat unique.
In response to your question about how "early Christian church" differs from "early Christianity." The early Christian Church is seen by Latter-Day Saints as the organization which existed when Christ was upon the earth (We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth - Article of Faith 6)and for a short season after. In essence, the apostles continued to exercise their authority but based on a lack of finding 'quorum' they were unable to function as a quorum and so the presiding authority was lost. This does not mean the LDS Church refutes the Catholic claim to apostolic succession, merely that the authority was eventually no longer recognized by Christ (likely at the death of the last of the New Testament apostles but that is my own speculation). The term 'Early Christianity' on the other hand seems to reflect the body and beliefs of followers of Christ during an earlier period which might span hundreds of years (over 300 years according to Wikipedia). Based on Smith's writings it would be absurd to think he was restoring the Church as it existed at the Nicene Council. So the term Early Church is preferable to Early Christianity. The Church Smith restored, we believe, was that which existed closer to c. 30 not c. 325.
Thanks again, John. Hoping we can find some better will in the future. Canadiandy1 ( talk) 02:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
I stopped talking for a day to try and clear my head, but still have the same fundamental objection. No one is actually a prophet. They don't exist. No Wikipedia article should assert that any person is one without a qualifier.—
Kww(
talk)
22:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Kww.
I agree with you that WP should not be identifying anyone as a prophet full-stop. That approaches bias. I have argued here that while it is my belief he was, that is not fair to neutral journalism. I prefer the statement should read that the Latter-Day Saints believed him to be a prophet. But even better I would argue that he is identified by the LDS (and I believe the RLDS) people as a 'Prophet' (capital 'P'). For us the title 'Prophet' is an actual office title within the High Priesthood. And common sensibility allows that terms like, Reverend, Dean, Bishop, Pope, and even King are appropriate, and so is the title (not qualifier) 'Prophet.'
Perhaps it could read:
"Joseph Smith, Jr. (December 23, 1805 – June 27, 1844) was the first Prophet (an office of Church Priesthood) of the Latter Day Saint movement."
I still prefer the word 'faith' as opposed to 'movement', but that's for another discussion.
Hope this helps.
Canadiandy1 ( talk) 03:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
I decided to discover what other encyclopedias use as their lead for Joseph Smith. Here are the results:
So there's ammunition here for any argument made above. If someone made me Grand Poobah of this article, I would write: "founder and first leader of the [LDS Church] and other Mormon denominations. His followers regard him as a prophet of God."-- John Foxe ( talk) 14:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I still don't like founder because it ignores the belief or possibility that it was God who organized the Church through Joseph. Yes, that cannot be written because it can not be proven, but neither can it be disproved therefore it should be reworded if possible. As I suggested, something like "For Latter-Day Saints, Joseph Smith was a prophet through whom Jesus Christ restored his Church" would be both neutral and accurate. I think Kww would be satisfied as this would not reflect Joseph Smith's authority, it would merely identify the common Latter-Day Saint belief about Smith's role in the restoration.
173.180.112.66 ( talk) 21:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
@Anon, I think in this instance we have to view "founder" from a real-world viewpoint. Joseph Smith Jr. is the guy who signed the papers that incorporated the body of believers into a formal, federally recognized church. What some people believe and who's signature are on the papers may be two different things. Padillah ( talk) 12:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree that Joseph was responsible for the legal foundation of the Church as an entity, and in that context he is the founder of the Church. And yes, Padillah, I agree the belief and legal reality may be two different things. So I would be fine adding the fact that Joseph acted in a lawful way, organizing the Church in accordance with State law as this is a positive, but again, I am trying to show sensitivity to those who do not believe Joseph Smith to be an inspired leader. So aiming at succinct brevity I proposed, "For Latter-Day Saints, Joseph Smith was a prophet through whom Jesus Christ restored his Church". I would be just as happy having it read;
"For Latter-Day Saints, Joseph Smith was a prophet through whom Jesus Christ restored his Church. On April 6, 1830, Smith legally incorporated and organized the church in compliance with New York State laws as an incorporation with six original members and himself and Oliver Cowdery being elected as presiding Elders (New York law required 3 to 9 initial committee members and 2 elected officers)."
Oh yeah, John, in your edit I think you left the word 'the' behind. As in "the Early Christianity".
173.180.112.66 ( talk) 16:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
I am interested in revising the recounting of the Expositor ordeal. The wording is confusing. It currently reads: "That summer, after a local publication criticized Smith's teachings, including plural marriage, Smith and, the Nauvoo city council ordered the destruction of the newspaper as a nuisance."
As it stands, it sounds as if Smith acted independently and specifically outside of his duties to remove the Expositor because it said mean things about him, which we know is not true; Smith counseled with the city council in his capacity as mayor and participated in the negotiations based on that position, not as an influential but uninvolved angry man. It should also be noted in here somewhere that the council's decision was made with regard for current legal precedent and on the basis of "keeping the peace" after the publication generated an uproar in Nauvoo.
I suppose the specific mention of plural marriage is OK since that was one of the major criticisms by the Expositor.
I think it may also be prudent to avoid the implication that the Expositor was an established paper that existed for some reason *besides* criticizing Smith.
What do you all think of something like this? "That summer, a controversial publication highly negative of Smith was issued, criticizing his teachings, especially plural marriage. Fearing aggravated mob violence, the Nauvoo city council, with Smith as mayor, ruled the publication a public nuisance and ordered its destruction."
It probably needs some work, but just throwing that out there. Let me know what you think. cooki e caper ( talk / contribs) 13:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Haven't given it too much thought, but to make it more readable I suggest changing,
"A publication critical of Smith was disseminated and deemed a public nuisance by the Nauvoo city council, with Smith as mayor"
To
"While Smith was mayor of Nauvoo, a publication critical of him was deemed a public nuisance by the city council and was disseminated"
Just a style proposal.
Bring on the mini-wheats.
I also like,
"That summer, a publication highly critical of Smith was circulated, criticizing his teachings, especially those on plural marriage. Fearing aggravated mob violence the Nauvoo city council, with Smith as mayor, ruled the publication a public nuisance and ordered its destruction." 173.180.112.66 ( talk) 01:11, 18 July 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
Looks good COgden but it reads oddly. Perhaps some commas. Like; "That summer, the Nauvoo city government led by Smith ordered the destruction, as a nuisance, of a newspaper that criticized Smith's power and recent teachings." Don't know how to fix it without making it longer but it seems awkward that way too. Perhaps, "That summer, the Nauvoo city government led by Smith ordered the destruction of a newspaper that criticized Smith's power and recent teachings, on the grounds of its being a nuisance." 173.180.112.66 ( talk) 17:25, 18 July 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
The article reads,
"Since 1835, the church had publicly denied accusations that members were practicing polygamy,[143] but behind the scenes, a rift developed between Smith and Oliver Cowdery over the issue.[144]"
First, the scope of the sentence here seems to be on the rift between Smith and Cowdery so including the church's denial makes the sentence progression awkward. Is the rift over polygamy or the church's "denial" of it? Needs a clean up.
Second, the link to the church's denial is dead so it should be questioned, updated, or removed.
Third, based on the argument that plural marriage was possibly dynastic in nature at that time and that it was a dangerously hot topic, (no I'm not trying to rehash the issue) what evidence exists that the church was complicit in acting in bad faith in these denials. It kind of reads like that. So if the rift is linked to polygamy (and not the church's denial of it) could it not read better as;
"Since 1835, some church members had been secretly practicing polygamy [fix dead link], and behind the scenes, a rift developed between Smith and Oliver Cowdery over the issue.[144]"
or
"Since 1835, the church had secretly permitted the practice of polygamy [fix dead link], and behind the scenes, a rift developed between Smith and Oliver Cowdery over the issue.[144]"
or if the link can't be fixed,
"In 1835 a rift developed between Smith and Oliver Cowdery over the issue of polygamy.[144]"
173.180.112.66 ( talk) 09:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
Great COgden, as long as the link (143) is changed to the book and not the website.
173.180.123.27 ( talk) 23:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
Under "Life in Ohio" it reads:
"...Smith also "translated" a papyrus obtained from a traveling mummy show"
According to History of the Church (2:235) On the 3rd of July, Michael H. Chandler came to Kirtland to exhibit some Egyptian mummies. There were four human figures, together with some two or more rolls of papyrus covered with hieroglyphic figures and devices. As Mr. Chandler had been told I could translate them, he brought me some of the characters, and I gave him the interpretation."
Does Brodie have different evidence that Smith went to Chandler's show? I recommend this might read better as;
"Smith also "translated" a papyrus given him by Michael H. Chandler who traveled with an exhibition (show) of Egyptian mummies. It was later published as the Book of Abraham."
This adds a name to the exhibitor and a context given the debate over who approached whom. As it stands it reads that Joseph Smith went to some random sideshow, brought home a souvenir, and translated it as scripture. The HC reference seems to suggest something quite different.
Additionally, I can't see any reference to the Book of Moses and wonder if it should not be included. Not sure why one is there and not the other. If for brevity, perhaps drop the whole line, add links and this rewrite;
"Smith also recorded two additional books of scripture, the Book of Abraham and the Book of Moses. One a translation from possible ancient Egyptian papyrus, the other received as part of Smith's "translation" of the Bible."
173.180.112.66 ( talk) 08:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
Looks great COgden. The individual isn't critical here, but could the HC record be referenced so that the name of the exhibitor is available for those wanting to research further? Also, is there evidence the papyri were purchased, if not how about 'received' in place of 'purchased' unless there is evidence to the contrary. Good proposal, COgden.
173.180.112.66 ( talk) 05:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
BFizz,
Using 'acquired' is a stroke of genius. It stays neutral as to the speculation of whether the papyri were gifted, borrowed, or purchased.
173.180.112.66 ( talk) 08:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
From what I am reading in "The Rise of Mormonism: 1816-1844" (H. Michael Marquardt), the confusion over the purchase or not of the papyri comes from the fact that the papyri accompanied the purchase of 4 mummies. So In essence Smith did not in fact purchase the papyri, he purchased the mummies and the papyri were thrown in. From this context, how about,
"Smith also purported to translate, from Egyptian papyri he acquired from Michael H. Chandler [notation 'X'], a text he later published as the Book of Abraham." [Notation 'X' to read] Chandler was the inheritor by will of 11 mummies and papyri from Antonio Lebolo. These items were on display in a traveling Egyptian exhibition. Smith was required to purchase 4 mummies in order to acquire the papyri and did so for the sum of $2400. (Marquardt, H. Michael, The Rise of Mormonism: 1816-1844)
As a side note, does anyone know what ever happened to the mummies Smith purchased? Last I read Emma had them.
173.180.123.27 ( talk) 00:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
I agree, B Fizz. What I think I am hearing is that the "tiny bit" should be the name of the individual, not just somebody or the show. Anything more I think adds even more text to an article it seems we are trying to shorten.
How about adding the descriptor 'exhibitor' as in;
"Smith also purported to translate, from Egyptian papyri he acquired from exhibitor Michael H. Chandler [notation 'X'], a text he later published as the Book of Abraham." [Notation 'X' to read] Chandler was the inheritor by will of 11 mummies and papyri from Antonio Lebolo. These items were on display in his traveling Egyptian exhibition. Smith was required to purchase 4 mummies in order to acquire the papyri and did so for the sum of $2400. (Marquardt, H. Michael, The Rise of Mormonism: 1816-1844)
173.180.123.27 ( talk) 16:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
Good points COgden. Looking it over I like your earlier recommendation;
I'm good with claimed. It seems to say the same thing and it's shorter. Alternatively it could be stated;
By stating "made a translation" as opposed to "translated" it seems to infer that the correctness of the translation remains open to discussion.
Still, I prefer,
173.180.123.27 ( talk) 15:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
StormRider, I see where you are coming from. But I don't think this is a case of alerting readers to a controversy as much as it is referencing the important debate that exists. Though I do prefer the word 'asserted' it makes for awkward or wordy rephrasing. Any suggestions on how to get around it? 173.180.123.27 ( talk) 22:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
I'm going to be bold here and add the variation (with claimed instead of purported) on COgden's
I know StormRider isn't happy with it, but then I don't think anything here will ever be 100% satisfied (this is an article of religious significance). If nothing else, I think we would all agree the change is an improvement to the original phrasing and maybe there will be time to rehash this one at a later date. I'm not sure about adding links so would you help me out COgden?
173.180.123.27 ( talk) 18:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
Actually I think I did it right by just leaving the old link and editing around it.
Also, if anyone is interested, in "Life in Ohio" I moved a quotation mark from the phrase Smith's life descended into a tangle of intrigue and conflict"
to
In looking at the original quote it begins at Smith (actually Joseph Smith's).
173.180.123.27 ( talk) 18:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
On the Good Article nomination page, it has been argued that the article has several instances easter eggs and overlinking. I have therefore revised the introduction, which I agree had too many unnecessary links. There is a school of thought out there that introductions should have a lower link density than other parts of the article, and I'm sympathetic to that, because if a reader reads something in the intro and wants to find out more, she should skip down and read the rest of the article, rather than reading a linked article. Let me know if anyone has a problem with my proposed changes to linking in the introduction.
The rest of the article needs to be combed over. Nasty Housecat raised the following examples of overlinked terms: "Book of Mormon, golden plates, polygamy, Carthage, and many others." We need to decide how often we want to link certain terms like Book of Mormon. Once per section? (Only linking once in the whole article is probably not enough, because we don't want the reader to have to comb back through the article to find the link.) COGDEN 01:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Id like to suggest a change in pictures used under the heading 'Founding a church (1827–30)'. The current picture, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:JosephSmithTranslating.jpg isn't clear enough to reflect the picture note. I prefer this picture: http://www.imagesoftherestoration.org/blog/wp-content/nggallery/Mormon%20Art/jstranslatingbom.jpg which is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License, because of its clarity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canstusdis ( talk • contribs) 18:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
One of Joseph's most famous prophecies is an accurate description of the civil war 33 years before it began. How come this isn't included? - Samuel Clayton —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuel Clayton ( talk • contribs) 18:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
(Copy paste removed by User:B Fizz. See Doctrine and Covenants section 87 on lds.org.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuel Clayton ( talk • contribs) 20:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
This article has tons more secondary sources than primary sources... Why? Seeing that we are supposed to simply display the facts and let the reader decide for himself, which is difficult to do when all which has been studied are books containing the opinions of other people--even if their account is considered reliable. Joseph Smith ordered the compilation of the History of the Church, six of these seven volumes describe his life alone. This is not even referenced once, which is pitiful. Bushman and Quinn are referenced at least 50 times, but what makes these other accounts any less applicable to not even be included? Using so many secondary sources is evidence alone how the article has been slightly biased--simply by placing emphasis on certain subjects such as polygamy.
It also does not make any differentiation between civil marriages and sealings and references to the rules prescribed to those involved in plural marriage. Men were required to get their wife's permission before taking on a second marriage. Joseph's story of him being a money-digger is a little different: " In the month of October, 1825, I hired with an old gentleman by the name of Josiah Stoal, who lived in Chenango county, State of New York. He had heard something of a silver mine having been opened by the Spaniards in Harmony, Susquehanna County, State of Pennsylvania; and previous to my hiring of him had bee digging in order if possible, to discover the mine. After I went to live with him, he took me and the rest of his hands, to dig for the silver mine, at which I continued to wok for nearly a month, without success in our undertaking, and finally I prevailed with the old gentleman to cease digging after it. Hence arouse the very prevalent story of my having been a money-digger." - Joseph Smith-History 1:55 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuel Clayton ( talk • contribs) 18:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
This article includes Bushman's and Vogel's "arguing" how Joseph originally viewed God. But this conflicts with Joseph's supposed first vision: "It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other--This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!" - Joseph Smith, History 1832 this is before1835
"I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father..."- June 16, 1844
This is how I would explain the concept which so often confuses people outside of the church including myself. Joseph Smith equated Jehovah with Jesus Christ God of the Old Testament. Several prophets viewed Jehovah in the Book of Mormon: Mohonri, Jacob, and Nephi all spoke with Christ prior to his birth, when he was a spirit. Joseph Smith taught that Jehovah was our spirit brother which was chosen as Elohim's (Heavenly Father's) only begotten son. Joseph Smith taught that God created the earth through Jehovah(Jesus) by the power of the Holy Spirit, and likewise this is how Mormons worship God the Father through Jesus Christ. They are not of one Body but of one Glory. "Let us make man in our image"- Genesis 1:26 Jehovah the God of the Old Testament and Jesus are the same person in the Mormon religion so Bushman and Vogel are both right in technicality, but not when it comes to clarification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuel Clayton ( talk • contribs) 20:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
It has been suggested on the good article review page that we include a bibliography of Joseph Smith's writings in this article. There are, of course, issues with listing works such as the Book of Mormon, which followers believe was in fact not written by Smith, or the Doctrine and Covenants, which followers believe were revealed to him by God. Issues aside, I think it's a good idea. Discuss. ...comments? ~ B F izz 21:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I think it could be easily done using phrases such as "published" or "translated what he claimed to be" ... .
96.51.55.125 ( talk) 03:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
User:Weaponbb7 has written the following in his review of the article:
“ | l would consider incorporating more of the Origin of Latter Day Saint polygamy as this seems to be minimized. Incorporate Criticism of Joseph Smith, Jr. into the prose. As these seem to have been minimized or left out entirely. | ” |
Should we consider introducing a "criticism" or "controversy" section into the article so that these key topics are not "minimized"? I personally do not see any main topics in the two articles mentioned that are not also duly treated in this article. Discuss ...comments? ~ B F izz 21:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I went ahead and revised the "Impact" section a bit to include not just the Mormon view deifying Smith, but also a brief discussion of the controversies he stirred in New York/Pennsylvania, Ohio, Missouri, and Illinois. I think that is also part of his "impact". I know this is covered in detail elsewhere in the article, but maybe this would help silence the criticism that the "Impact" section is unbalanced. Comments or suggestions are welcome. COGDEN 00:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I absolutely agree with the Wikipedia editor who requests a review by "someone with more expertise on this subject" before this article gets a good article rating.
I don't know anything about Mormonism, but this article clearly contains material that hss been added by vandals in an attempt to make Mormons look like superstitious idiots. Huge parts of it are taken from a "South Park" episode specifically designed to mock Mormon beliefs.
I would ask knowledgable Mormons to edit this article, removing this insulting nonsense and presenting the actual beliefs of their faith. Mardiste ( talk) 21:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you Mardiste for speaking up. Some of us LDS have expressed the same concern, and it's nice to have it validated that it isn't merely a bias of ours since an outside voice sees it too. 173.180.116.53 ( talk) 16:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
I'm quite disappointed in the discourtesy shown Mardiste. It is clear that his statement, "I don't know anything about Mormonism" was simply meant as an open courtesy to help identify his POV. But some who did not agree with his POV, instead of listening and respecting his opinion have jumped to merely discredit him. Very poor form. 173.180.116.53 ( talk) 03:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
I've emailed some BYU professors and asked them to review the article according to Wikipedia policies and good article criteria. Part of the email was as follows:
“ | The Joseph Smith, Jr. article at Wikipedia is undergoing review for "Good Article" status. Wikipedians (volunteer editors at Wikipedia) disagree about the neutrality of the article, some saying it is too pro-mormon, and some saying it is too anti-mormon.
Given your expertise on the subject, would you kindly consider reviewing the article and giving your input, anonymously or otherwise? |
” |
I also provided them with links and promised that if they choose to provide feedback through me that I will keep it anonymous unless they indicate otherwise. Perhaps one or more of them will be able to help us to improve the quality of the article and provide the "knowledgeable Mormon" viewpoint that has been requested. ...comments? ~ B F izz 20:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Wow, I think I owe everyone a big apology for starting this thread. I swear to God, this is actually worse than the time I invited the two terrified subliterate 18-year-old Utah farmboy virgins (oops, I mean "Church Elders") into my house to discuss theology. I thought they would have at least had a basic knowledge of the books of the Old Testament. This is just really sad. Mardiste ( talk) 22:32, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Mardiste, I'm quite disappointed by this post. Referring to a companionship of LDS Missionaries as you do above is uncalled for. I took your initial post on good will, but I am now confused by whatever point you are trying to make. Your attempts at suggesting you are a better individual because you knew the books of the Old Testament remind me of when Mark Twain was told by a friend “Before I die, I plan to make a pilgrimage to the Holy Land. I will climb to the top of Mount Sinai and read the Ten Commandments aloud.” Replied Twain, “Why don’t you stay home and keep them?” I'd rather side with those two Elders who were likely trying to live what is taught in the Bible to the best of their knowledge than with someone who knows it inside and out but still acts with rudeness and contempt for his neighbors.
173.180.116.53 ( talk) 07:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
I have some concerns with the wording,
"He saw his teachings and the Church of Christ as a restoration of early Christian ideals that had been lost in a great apostasy. At first, the power of Smith's church rested mainly on religious experience and charismatic authority, with little sense of hierarchy."
Regardless of the sources these statements are highly debatable.
First, Smith did not see the Church of Christ as merely "a restoration of early Christian ideals" he saw it as a restoration of the actual early Church (thus the return of Peter, James and John, the senior apostles following Christ's death and resurrection, before the organization of the Church to restore Priesthood and presiding authority).
Second, the power of the Church did not rest on "charismatic authority" it rested on restored authority.
Yes, I know most don't believe that, but it would more accurately (and fairly) read;
"He saw his teachings and the Church of Christ as a restoration of the early Christian church that had been lost in a great apostasy. At first, the power of Smith's church rested mainly on religious experience and Smith's declared authority, with little sense of hierarchy." 173.180.116.53 ( talk) 16:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
Thanks for your input John. As to the second point I'm confused. The way it reads to me is that in the early days (after the Church was organized) Joseph presided by appealing to his own charisma and not to the authority he stated he received from God. I don't deny many were drawn to his character (charisma) but I'm not sure it can be said absolutely that that is where the "power of the Church [rested]."
Perhaps the problem is with the term "Charismatic Authority" which is a confusing term (there is even confusion on the WP page discussing the term). Is there a better way this could be phrased so as not to confuse?
173.180.116.53 ( talk) 22:49, 21 August 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
I tried to follow the Quinn reference and can't find an active link to his 1994 book on early Mormon heirarchy. Do you have a link? If not, how does he evidence the claim about a merely charismatic authority? 173.180.116.53 ( talk) 23:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
Thanks COgden. Looking deeper though, it seems to me that Quinn's position is speculative at best. There is as much, if not more, evidence suggesting Smith acknowledged, and did appeal to, restored authority even before the organization of the Church. In June 1829 at Fayette, New York, Joseph Smith received (stated) as D&C 18:9,
"And now, Oliver Cowdery, I speak unto you, and also unto David Whitmer, by the way of commandment; for, behold, I command all men everywhere to repent, and I speak unto you, even as unto Paul mine apostle, for you are called even with that same calling with which he was called."
Further in April 1830 Joseph revealed (stated) as D&C 20:2-3;
"Which commandments were given to Joseph Smith, Jun., who was called of God, and ordained an apostle of Jesus Christ, to be the first elder of this church; And to Oliver Cowdery, who was also called of God, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to be the second elder of this church, and ordained under his hand;"
I don't expect anyone to take my side on this one, but it is only fair to remove the "Charismatic Authority" statement until we have better agreement. As I said, at best this one is debatable, and so it should be removed until the evidence is more reliable.
Respectfully, 173.180.116.53 ( talk) 00:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
Hi John,
Thanks for the change. I respect your point on relying solely on Joseph's words. My point in the Doctrine and Covenants reference wasn't based as evidence such that because he said it it is true. I was merely using them as evidence based on timing. The fact that such was taught by Smith as early as 1829 and again in 1830 (I doubt there is much dispute as to the timing of these teachings) conflict with the position that Smith relied solely on his charisma for authority.
Your improvement now reads;
"At first, authority within Smith's church rested largely on his own charismatic personality and religious experiences."
Would anyone have problems with it reading;
"At first, authority within Smith's church rested largely on his charismatic personality and his own stated claim to apostolic succession (D&C 20:2-3)."
All this seems to do is identify what is meant by the term "religious experiences." I think this accepts the fact that, whether or not one accepts Smith's claim to apostolic succession, he himself justified his role as presiding elder based on his claim to divine authority.
173.180.116.53 ( talk) 06:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
"At first, authority within Smith's church rested largely on his own charismatic personality and religious experiences."
From our edits, the meaning of this sentence has evolved from talking about the authority of other people within the church to solely Smith's authority within it. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe Foxe (or COgden) sourced Quinn there talking about the former, not the latter.
The sentence should read "At first, Smith's authority within his church...". Or, if we're talking about other people's authority within his church, then how can their authority "rest on [Smith's] charismatic personality and religious experiences"? I'm running into either a superfluous sentence (wouldn't his authority come from the fact that it's "his" church?) or a non sequitur. ...comments? ~ B F izz 14:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
COgden. I commend you for your knowledge on this stuff. I think the problem I am having is that the great majority of people reading the article will be confused by the term "Charismatic Authority (CA)" If by it you mean Joseph claimed authority based on visions or revelations and not physical succession (i.e. laying on of hands), that is debatable but I'll grant it may be the case. But if so that needs to be made plain for the Wikipedia readership. I still contend that leaving a confusing phrase like "Charismatic Authority" in there is not helpful towards a fair understanding of most Wikipedia readers.
Wikipedia describes "CA" as "resting on devotion to the exceptional sanctity, heroism or exemplary character of an individual person, and of the normative patterns or order revealed or ordained by him."
I don't think Smith taught that it was he revealing 'X' to the Saints, as much as it was what God revealed to him. Thus, God (Jesus Christ) is the source of the Charismatic Authority (or so Joseph appears to have recorded).
Wikipedia then goes on to say, "Charismatic authority is one of three forms of authority laid out in Weber's tripartite classification of authority, the other two being traditional authority and rational-legal authority."
Translation here seems to be that the term itself is confusing even among the experts and even if used would need to be broken out according to its context. COgden, you seem to know what the intricacies of how the early authority unfolded, I wonder if you could come up with a better phrasing that is more clear (and hopefully shorter).
Sincere thanks, 173.180.106.108 ( talk) 20:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
COgden,
I know that throughout Christianity the term 'charismatic' might have unique meaning, but this article is not for religious readers only. I would prefer your proposal of "authority derived from visions and revelations" as it avoids jargon.
173.180.106.108 ( talk) 00:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
Thanks, Padillah. Excellent recommendation.
173.180.106.108 ( talk) 20:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
Another problem with wording here. Under theology of family it reads,
"Smith taught that the highest exaltation would be achieved through "plural marriage" (polygamy),[354] which was the ultimate manifestation of this New and Everlasting Covenant.[358] Plural marriage allowed an individual to transcend the angelic state and become a god[359] by gaining an "eternal increase" of posterity."
I've read through the reference to Foster and found nothing to suggest that the highest exaltation is exclusive to participants in plural marriage. She does infer that as celestial marriage brings the highest exaltation, then multiple celestial marriages would enhance or expand such. But this does not exclude non-participants in multiple marriage from the highest exaltation.
I suggest a correction to,
"Smith taught that the highest exaltation could be achieved through eternally sealed marriages (including plural marriages) performed by Priesthood authority,[354] which were the ultimate manifestation of this New and Everlasting Covenant.[358]These marriages allowed an individual to transcend the angelic state and become a god[359] by gaining an "eternal increase" of posterity."
173.180.116.53 ( talk) 17:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
Thanks COgden. For the prominent sources following, the issue here is that the text seems to imply that Smith taught that the highest exaltation available is exclusive to plural marriage participants. This is not accurate as the highest exaltation has always been taught to be available to those marrying one wife as well. Whether or not plural marriage is "particularly exalted" (how much higher can the highest exaltation go?) or was taught as such is a bit of a fringe issue when it is already stated clearly that plural marriage could lead to the highest exaltation. Especially given the fact we are looking to shorten this article up.
173.180.116.53 ( talk) 17:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
COgden, upon further reading, all I could find in which Foster says plural marriage is a higher exaltation revolves around the logic (not necessarily mine) that since the main work of exalted beings will be the increase of posterity, they will be more efficacious with multiple spouses. Even if this assumption is true it still does not alter the reality that there does not seem to be sufficient evidence that Smith taught specifically that the higher exaltation is exclusive to only those who enter into plural marriage. 173.180.116.53 ( talk) 17:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
I don't argue with what Joseph or Brigham may have said to those being encouraged (called?) to enter into plural marriages. But I still don't see any exclusionary evidence. I just don't think Foster's point warrants the wording as it stands (i.e. giving the impression that Joseph taught that non-polygamists could not achieve the highest of exaltation). It's a horrible analogy but I think of two people invited to a feast (one skinny, the other very large by weight). I don't question that one might enjoy the feast more, but the reality stands that both will be "fully" blessed. I see nothing in what Smith taught collectively to dispute this position. I'm not asking that Smith's teachings be ignored, just that they be used in a context which is not confusing or unintentionally misleading. Smith never taught that only polygamists would achieve the "highest exaltation." You could argue that he taught they would be more effective or satisfied within their exalted state, if so that is the way it should read in the article.
i.e. "Smith taught that based on the expanded celestial family structure those accepting polygamy would realize even greater (joy/efficacy/success/blessings) as exalted beings."
That seems to be what Foster and you are saying, so is there anything wrong with saying something like that?
It is just a start, and I don't say I even agree with it, (something about the nature of an infinite eternity, what is infinity times 3, and my feeling that family design is not a numbers game or a race seems to this post-polygamy LDS guy to make me feel quite comfortable with one celestial mortgage) but it is still better (IMHO) than it stands now.
173.180.106.108 ( talk) 21:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
Thanks, Padillah. Good point.
So, I'm comfortable with, "Smith taught that based on the expanded celestial family structure those accepting polygamy would realize even greater success as exalted beings."
COgden, can you find a Smith reference for this? 173.180.106.108 ( talk) 15:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
COgden. I'm a little confused here. I understand how Foster's argument about exaltation works. But I think he might be reading a little more into what Joseph believed or taught than is really there. In what I have read it seems more like Joseph was merely teaching that the exaltation of those who were directed to participate in plural marriages was just as conditional as those of us today who are capable of entering into temple marriage. I don't doubt (or believe) Joseph might have discussed the "Foster Logic" as encouragement to those hesitant to enter into plural marriage. But I think this confusing speculation of how much exaltation one receives would be better discussed in the article "Mormonism and Polygamy."
Kindly,
173.180.106.108 ( talk) 22:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
Respectfully COgden, I think we're into a semantic deadlock. The term 'Exaltation' here seems to be used as a verb and a noun. I lean towards the understanding that it is most commonly used by Joseph and his followers as a noun. If you were to ask most LDS what is meant by the term, they would likely respond that it is, in itself, the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom. Whether it is the top third of the Celestial Kingdom is not the point, but that it is the inheritance (noun not verb)of eternal progression is the best understanding we seem to receive from Joseph and his followers.
You state that the common understanding in the Church is that exaltation is more a process, I disagree. No I don't disagree that it is also a process, but I do hold that it is primarily an achievement or an accomplishment. Thus Elder Legrande Richards' quote that "To a Latter-Day Saint, salvation without exaltation is damnation." And Elder Russell M. Nelson's quote that, "To be exalted—or to gain exaltation—refers to the highest state of happiness and glory in the celestial realm."
Again, I commend your knowledge on the subject, but I still say that Joseph never intended to imply that only through polygamy could Saints inherit the "highest heaven," or a higher degree within it.
But it seems we are at a mere stalemate here and so I will step away from the topic if you wish the article to stand as is. 173.180.106.108 ( talk) 22:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
This article has been disputed heavily with regards to it's neutrality. Some of these are old, but some are relatively recent. What is the consensus, is this article stable and neutral enough to be a GA? I would appreciate it if someone could give an up-to-date statement regarding the neutrality debate. Obvious neutrality is a clear requirement for a GA. Reviewer: ~ Gosox( 55)( 55) 17:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Gosox,
I'm a bit of a vocal outsider here so take my input for what it's worth.
From my position the article is quite inflammatory in overall tone (thus the frequent input by myself and others highly offended in the LDS community), long, over-sourced, and dependent on unstable sources. Many argue that Brodie is the most prominent on the subject, but as many would gladly source another researcher with less academic baggage (much speculation on her methods and bias). The other researcher cited frequently is touted by contributors as a faithful Mormon, yet this is a red herring as the majority of his research (in his book "A Rough Stone Rolling") was purposely aimed at finding the subject's flaws. This does not exclude his research but does beg the question about balance in the article. I know there are many who would like to see this article GAed as recognition of their efforts, but I think we need to remember this is not an article about pomegranates, it is about an important religious figure to a large faith community, and prudence and sensitivity should be considered before expediting this article's approval prematurely.
Thanks.
173.180.112.66 ( talk) 17:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
For what it's worth, I'm a non-Mormon (in fact, a "never-been-a-Mormon") who believes this encyclopedia article is about as unbiased and nicely balanced as any piece about Joseph Smith can be. I wish to be respectful here, but I think what Weaponbb7 interprets as pro-Mormon bias stems from his own lack of familiarity with the literature.-- John Foxe ( talk) 20:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Ok I knew i have some flack from people who worked so hard on it and have done a pretty desecent job. this is normal type of reaction is normal
"sectarian ferver of their day" its not the type of language that is not good in a Encyclopedia its very flowery language. There is a fair bit of flowery language here which could be reduced to more simple and precise words. "well-to-do neighbor"
Below the Infobox in there is Template that says says "This article is part of the series Joseph Smith, Jr." Than list the subjects "the polygammy" and "Criticism" Among other things sections that were left out of the article. I do not know why these two were left out but they were so i have to question why? leaving those two out seemed odd to leave out I had to question why?
"Legacy" seems an odd choice of words for a section it makes it sound like the page is memorial.
Classic example of language I am concerned about "Historians regard Joseph Smith as one of the most imaginative, charismatic, and controversial leaders in American religious history." Its stated but this needs to be expanded as it is not clear to me reading it what is "imaginative" about what he has done? and again why is he "controversial leaders." this could substatially expanded by a few paragraphs.
"On matters of public policy, Smith favored a strong central bank and high tariffs to protect American business and agriculture. Smith disfavored imprisonment of convicts except for murder, preferring efforts to reform criminals through labor; he also opposed courts-martial for military deserters. " is complexly uncited could use citation. critical Commentary might involve some scholarly Analysis of his action Stephen A. Kent wrote a good one a few years ago that might be useful as an example or as a useful reference
I would argue that "Some Scholars" is weaselly... just name the scholars who say so!
Over all I think this article is pretty good. The Actual Biography portion of his life is so well done I can't find anything wrong with it. I think I will give this the thumbs up once the flowery language is cleared up and the legacy section is rewritten to include the scholarly analysis of him. Weaponbb7 ( talk) 23:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
An example of the type of commentary I would look for: http://caliber.ucpress.net/doi/pdfplus/10.1525/nr.2010.13.3.34
[14] This is the kind of stuff i might be looking for Weaponbb7 ( talk) 23:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
There's a Second Opinion request and two reviews, and there appears to have been no activity on the GA Review for over a month. Who is actually doing the review? And is a Second Opinion still requested? Speed is not the priority in a GA Review, and if the review is still in progress that is fine, though an update comment would be useful at this point. SilkTork * YES! 16:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't mean any offense, but when Weaponbb wrote,
"This article has some severe flaws with bias as it lacks critical commentary of this figure."
I was left wondering if he had read the right article. This whole article is nothing but a critical commentary.
Polygamist? treasure-hunter? Exorcist? Tried as disorderly? Power-grabbing? Military leader in retreat? "Dirty"? "Nasty"? Poor financial oversight? Intimidating? Pillaging? Media suppressor?
And that's all in the first half of the article! You can believe all that tripe, but surely you can't suggest the article lacks critical commentary. If that's praise, I'd hate to see what criticism is.
Is there anyone here that would argue that the majority of the references sources are not critics of Joseph? The only one I can find who is not cynically critical in their research is Bushman, and his writings were purposely aimed at finding Joseph's flaws. So Brodie gets to write, fair. And LDS Church Historians are excluded based on a sensitivity to POV, arguably fair. But for anyone to then suggest the article is not critical enough after all that?
My input is that this article has a strong structurally negative bias. I don't lay the fault so much with the contributors, as much as the framework of sources on which Joseph Smith's life has been myopically defined. Until the 1970s, the only academics who seemed to be writing (the consensus here is often that, unfortunately, Brodie is the best we have) about Joseph Smith had strong negative biases. And when you then take out the acceptance of LDS sources it is not surprising the article reads more like an expose'.
So my two bits. This article may be on hold for a few years until it can be fundamentally reworked. No, I do not expect it to look like a Mormon pamphlet. But, yes, I expect it to go back to the drawing board until there are more reliable historians (not merely anti-Mormon or even pro-Mormon cynics) who are not writing because they have an axe to grind. The problem is not the contributors, the problem is not the good will to balance this based on the evidence. The problem, I think, is with the very limited availability of reliable AND unbiased research.
Fawn Brodie was actually right when she wrote, "No man knows my history." And as Nibley referred to her research, "No, Ma'am, that's not history."
Feel free to slag a great religious leader, just take a little time before you do to notice the dove on top of the discussion page.
Canadiandy1 ( talk) 06:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
COgden,
Unfair. I never said that all non-Mormon writers have an axe to grind. But I do think that the majority of evidence written about Joseph Smith before the 1970s was inherently based in a 'love him/hate him' paradigm. Neither do I "...suspect the motives of anyone writing about Mormonism who isn't a firm believer." Your words, not mine. It was Charles Dickens who wrote,
"But I went on board their ship to bear testimony against them if they deserved it, as I fully believed they would; to my great astonishment, they did not deserve it; and my predispositions and tendencies must not affect me as an honest witness, I went over the Amazon's side, feeling it impossible to deny that, so far, some remarkable influence had produced a remarkable result, which better-known influences have often missed."
Last I checked Dickens was not a Mormon.
But forgive me a fair academic skepticism when I ask individuals writing on Joseph Smith the following;
1. What is your motivation in writing on Joseph Smith? 2. What will you use as your evidences and sources? 3. When you come across unproven or speculative evidences, how will you address them?
As an example, my non-Mormon father is in the process of writing a book on the history of Louis Riel. I asked him why, as there is no family/religious/historical connection whatsoever, he would write on such a topic. His reason is that since Riel was a polarizing figure, most of the histories he has read are founded in a positive or negative bias. As he is not on either side of the history he feels he would make a better writer on the topic for that very reason.
I think this is a perfect parallel to the problem with this article. Joseph Smith researchers may attempt neutrality, but their sources are largely drawn from wildly biased sources (those who loved him enough to write, or those who hated him enough to write). And no, I don't even blame the Mormon haters for this paradox. It's not a question of who's right and wrong, it's a question of when are we going to look for better sources that the 'poisoned tree' we've been eating from for so long.
One of the discussions we (I, sorry) debated for a long time related to the number of wives Joseph Smith was purported to have had. While DNA testing has yet to prove a single offspring from Joseph (except through Emma) the old records are given preferred treatment. I don't expect people to agree with my religious beliefs, I do expect the historians and contributors here to have the courage to admit that not enough is truly 'known' about Joseph to fly this article as an accurate depiction (Good Article) of who Joseph Smith was. It seems amazingly Quixotic to do so.
You make the point that several "scholars all cite each other, and everybody cites them." I suspect if we sat them down and asked them if they were happy with the quality of evidence available to them they would say pretty much what I'm saying here, It's too bad Joseph Smith was such a polarizing figure, because it's hard to know which, of any of the early chroniclers can be trusted. And those that are worth their salt would be saying something like, we're just scratching the surface of Joseph Smith, the only thing Brodie got right is when she quoted Smith's own words, "No man knows [his] history."
Hey, look. A windmill.
Canadiandy1 ( talk) 01:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
The image File:JosephSmithTranslating.jpg appears to be a modern photographic interpretation by a non-notable person of Smith's use of seer stones. As such, it's unclear why it should be included here at all.
I also find it strange that most the historic illustrations lack captions that clearly state their origins, something that seems especially important for images produced by the LDS-movement itself.
Peter Isotalo 23:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I must admit, Peter, I am also confused by your stated objections to this image. Do you think the idea of sitting on a chair, resting your elbows on your knees, and covering your face with a hat is too difficult a position to re-imagine? And I'd dearly like to know what bias is implied by rendering an image of someone doing exactly what the description said they were doing. Graves is irrelevant because the existence of this free image has rendered his drawing unnecessary. It's not an interpretation of that work - it's an interpretation of the description provided by eye-witnesses. How is the origin of a photograph self-explanatory? You don't expect me to believe that you can tell who took a photo simply by the look of the photo, do you? I have no idea what your examples are supposed to represent. I found no illustrations in any of them much less attribution (except for a single Mozart painting). Please help us out by explaining your position in more depth. It may be self-evident to you but I'm missing the point completely. Padillah ( talk) 18:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I am sure we can take it at face value, but I don't know about those reading the article who follow the links for a source. We shouldn't assume that all readers are contributors. The simple solution is to have it attributed to 'anonymous' or to 'relative of the contributor formerly known as John Foxe' or simply a cool symbol like the artist Prince used. :-)
The best image I've found is at http://www.imagesoftherestoration.org/blog/?p=8 . While I prefer the LDS stock photo at http://freebookofmormon.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/bom_translation.jpg , I realize it isn't juicy enough playing to the whole hat thing. I mean if we're looking for true accuracy what about the type of pants he would have been wearing? I agree with the last image (the one that looks like there is some weird glowing happening) being not great (no offense, but it looks like it draws more on the Catholic stylizations with the aura type thing depicted visually). I have no problems with Catholic art, gotta love the Sistine Chapel, it just doesn't seem to fit the depiction of a leader of a restorationist religion.
No offense meant, John, I know you meant well. I just think honesty here about our impressions are in order. I didn't hate it because it portrayed Joseph in a bad light, I just didn't like the art. Too cartoony or something. Canadiandy1 ( talk) 23:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
John, your bias is showing again. I would respect an individual writing that the LDS image was inaccurate (critical opinion, but valid). But to write that it is "deliberately deceptive" makes me think you are looking to stir the pot here. How could you know the motivation or intent of the artist or publishers of the work? Please realize that when you write in such a manner it lessens your credibility. If you took offense at my dislike of the painting of your relative please realize it is strictly a dislike of the product, not the process or its creator. Apologies if I have offended.
Canadiandy1 ( talk) 05:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
Thanks again for being a true neutral voice here Padillah. I personally don't want to have anything to do with encouraging the author of "Images of Restoration" as he appears to be a bit of an anti-Mormon hack. In an effort to be neutral though I'd understand those in the community here contacting him for copyright. The contact links are all there.
Canadiandy1 ( talk) 05:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
The one thing we seem to agree on here is the need for the scribe to be portrayed. COgden and BFizz may have hit on what it was that was so unnerving about the picture. Without the fuller perspective it is a man, alone, looking depressed or closed, hunched over and looking (crying) into something. I say fix it, replace it with something else, or leave it out until we can find something better. Canadiandy1 ( talk) 05:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
I am sorry I said it that way, I hadn't made the connection it was family when I did, John. Even then, I never took art in High School so I humbly admit a High School kid would do better than me, any day. And even if I could draw, I've said before that the fixation on the fact Joseph looked into a hat to translate is only relevant because it sounds juicy. If Joseph had written in pencil with a box of kleenex nearby nobody would care because it wouldn't be controversial. That said, I feel I have respected both sides of the issue in a neutral manner by accepting 'an' image of Joseph Smith using a hat, I just don't think it should be 'the' image we have at present because it is confusing in its effect and perspective. That's me putting on my 'neutral' hat.
I actually find the fascination with the fact Joseph Smith used a hat to help him focus during the transaltion process odd. I mean, has anyone ever found convincing evidence to suggest Joseph thought the hat had mystical properties. That might make it relevant. Until then I think of this fixation with hats as either spin, or something akin to Imelda Marcos' fixation with shoes.
My hat's off to a guy who could dictate such an amazing text with no notes (if he had them they'd have been unreadable in a covered hat, right). Canadiandy1 ( talk) 00:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
So why then would we focus on the hat, and not the seer stone? A good image should be a summary of the process. Like showing the closet door of Imelda Marcos' shoe collection instead of an actual pair (or multiple pairs) of her shoes. As I see it the process involved Joseph viewing the stones, dictating what he saw, and then the words clearing when he had translated correctly. Him looking into a hat is secondary (and possibly trivial) to his described process. So either, a) include a replica or artistic depiction of the seer stone, or b) put in a picture of present-day Liberty Jail instead and include (or maintain) a correct depiction of the translation textually. I don't mean to belabor this one, but it seems common sense to me. I also sense a desire for improvement but a lack of desire or priority to make the needed change. So I'll let this one go for now. I just want to make the observation that there is dissatisfaction with it and that it remains on the to do list for improving the article.
Summary, I don't like it, most of us don't, but I can wait until we fix it later.
Canadiandy1 ( talk) 01:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
John Foxe. I think you're misreading between the lines. I was not being critical of anyone when I commented that I sensed "a lack of desire or priority to make the needed change." If anything the statement was meant to reflect the fact that while nobody is saying it, my priorities might not be those of everybody and I may be the one beating the proverbial dead horse. I apologize if I didn't make my point more clear, in essence it is "Let's move on." But if we are discussing courtesy and respect here, I believe it is generally impolite to speak in imperatives (i.e., "Take Cogden's description to your high school...").
As to COgden's wish that the stone(s) were displayed publicly, not me. I think it would just be another media frenzy and something our enemies would mock. If they are there, keep them there, I say.
And 40 000? What does the number of people who view something have to do with its validity? Of those 40 000 viewing the page easily half scrolled over it. Of those that saw it maybe half knew what they were looking at. Of those, maybe half cared about the relevance. Of those, maybe half viewed the image as believable or an accurate depiction... Canadiandy1 ( talk) 01:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
I don't think many LDS believe that Smith translated through an intellectual capacity. We commonly accept Cowdery's words that the Book of Mormon was translated "...by the gift and power of God". So while I agree there is purpose in identifying that Joseph translated independently (except for the use of a scribe) through a "claimed" spiritual gift, I don't think the hat is at all relevant. And no, I don't expect other contributors to agree with me. But at the same time, I will take issue with the argument that the hat is of some great significance. COgden seems to have the only valid argument, in that it was the receptacle of the seer stones and thus hid the stones from sight. But even this suggests that the hat image is at best problematic. So while some would argue that it is the only way to represent the process, I disagree. It would be better described (as it already is) textually.
Still, I'm not going to belabor this, I thank you all for your input and general civility. I just felt I should voice my concerns over the image selection. My opposition remains, but my respect for the process does too, so I can let this one go until another season.
And thanks for the apology, John. Fully accepted. Again, I suspect any angst began with my mistake in being so vocal in discrediting the image's creation and so is likely deserved. My bad. Canadiandy1 ( talk) 00:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
Postscript: Looking back at the LDS image, I see how Padillah might think the intention was that the translation was strictly an intellectual one. If that is the case it is unintentionally misleading. But as this is part of the LDS Gospel Art Kit, (GAK 416, CH) one should recognize its intended audience is attending Church members including children. And I'm sure COgden would agree that you'd be lucky to find 1 in 100 LDS members who believe Joseph translated the plates through a mere intellectual capacity. So when LDS see Joseph looking on the plates, there is a given understanding that (whatever the specifics of the process) he is in the spiritual process of receiving direct revelation. The difference is that the artist here is focusing not on a hat, but on the points of greater importance; 1. That Joseph was the sole translator. 2. A scribe was used during the translation process. 3. That the process was in a closed setting (i.e. not publicly displayed). 4. That the translation was of Plates of Gold. There is nothing misleading about the image when seen from its proper audience and context. But if you put Joseph alone, in a chair, with the plates nowhere in view, with no scribe, and no context for how many, if any are in the room, you'd have a lot of LDS scratching their heads in confusion. Canadiandy1 ( talk) 00:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
@StormRider - the argument you pose assumes the historicity of the Bible. You are asking us to take the Bible at the same face value as Bushman and even Smith himself. I'm sorry but, I can't support that kind of argument. If you can find a history of the Christian Bible or the Bhagavad Gita that comes close to Smiths own words where the Book of Mormon are concerned then you'd have a point. But to take umbrage because we wish to take Smith at his word doesn't seem like a very valid argument. Padillah ( talk) 12:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I still believe the image to be questionable from several perspectives, but since there seems to be no consensus for removing it, I would like to bring up the need to describe it properly. The image has only had a cpation describing the subject of the image itself. That would seem acceptable if it was a photography or something similar. However, since it is an artistic image was made by a non-notable person and an interpretation of a religious-historical event, I believe it should be more clearly labeled, as per WP:NPOV. I do not believe this detracts from it's illustrative value, and it makes it more acceptable to those who are skeptical to its inclusion in the first place. Since none of this information can be considered obvious, I believe it reflects the intentions of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (captions).
I tried to add such a caption at the beginning of this discussion, but it was reverted due to the reference to the Clane Graves image that figured earlier in the discussion here. I've tried to add a slightly amended version that avoids mention of Graves that I believe to be neutral in description without adding excessive or destracting details.
Btw, I would really recommend that John Foxe added a more truthful description to the image metadata at Commons. Currently, it omits information that has been discussed here, and which is generally considered a requirement for image inclusion.
Peter Isotalo 13:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Peter, your changes to the picture captions were discussed earlier and you did not participate. I have no problem discussing them again, but this time you need to take part in the discussion. Furthermore, the burden of proof lies with the editor wishing to make a change, so the captions should remain as is until that consensus can be determined.-- John Foxe ( talk) 18:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm having a hard time with your logic Foxe. First of all whether there is or isn't a WP rule that something should be added doesn't mean it can't. Wikipedia rules don't say we have to add this picture. This seems to be a unique situation (an alias who is the major article contributor commissions a family member to do a modern interpretation of a historical event at which the artist was not present and is relying on the contributor for details). Also, I would argue about using the term 'consensus.' There may be a majority, but there are substantial contributors who clearly disagree. In essence, both parties are not in agreement.
207.216.52.116 ( talk) 16:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy