![]() | 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 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |
"Though Smith was crowned king, Jesus would periodically appear during the Millennium as the ultimate ruler. Following a thousand years of peace, Judgment Day would be followed by a final resurrection, when all humanity would be assigned to one of three heavenly kingdoms." THis says Joseph Smith will rein as King. This has no reference, I am LDS and have never heard of this in my life... I want badly to delete it, May I? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuel Clayton ( talk • contribs) 01:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
I would like to see more primary sources on this subject, quotes commonly accessible show differently. "For the Lord shall be in their midst, and he will be their king and lawgiver."- Joseph Smith, D & C 45:59 Perhaps Bushman is referring to this statement, but nowhere can I locate source stating Smith will be king: " Christ and the ressurected saints will reign over the earth during the thousand years. They will not probably dwell upon the earth, but will visit it when they please or when it is necessary to govern it."- Joseph Smith, Teachings, p. 268 I have found a number of such inconsistencies throughout the article and I cannot fix them all on my own. Please take the time to reference primary sources in addition to secondary sources ( a biography is not a primary source). I recognize the bias on both sides, but this is my religion and I believe a balance of both kinds of sources would help this article's neutrality immensely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuel Clayton ( talk • contribs) 03:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
The first paragraph has the following sentence.
Professing a God-given ability to see visions while peering at seer stones, Smith said he used this ability to translate the writing on the plates from their unknown language into English
The terms 'peering' and 'professing' seem unclear or awkward. I thought he was looking at the reflection in the translation and so 'peering at' might even be incorrect. And 'professing' might be questionable, not that Joseph was hiding the fact, but that word seems to connote an orchestrated effort to publicize his sacred gift, which I have seen no evidence of. 'Stating,' or 'acknowledging,' would be better. Also, as this information is available later in the article, it makes sense to shorten it up a bit.
As a starting point, how about,
Through the use of "seer stones," Smith claimed he used his God-given ability to translate the unknown language on the plates into English.
Seems a little more succinct.
Canadiandy1 ( talk) 03:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
I'm good with that BFizz. I like COgden's suggestion but don't like the term 'divine' as a verb. Makes me think of water divining. I know it has common usage, but semantically I think it has a more mystical allusion.
I would support your proposal;
Smith claimed that, "by the gift and power of God", he translated the unknown language on the plates into English.
Especially given that the process is broken out in detail later on even to the point of the hat, seer stones, and processes he may have followed.
Canadiandy1 ( talk) 23:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
I don't know if I should start this in a new section, but in the first paragraph it also states,
"[He] organized what he said was a restoration of the early Christian church based on this book and his interpretation of the Bible."
Has there been discussion on this one before? My understanding is that Joseph Smith did not base the restoration of the Church on these restored scriptures, but on a foundation of Priesthood authority founded in Jesus Christ (i.e. Jesus Christ being the chief cornerstone). I know this may sound picky, but as it reads now it sounds like Joseph read about Christ's Church in these "restored" scriptures and then chose to organize a Church. Which kind of misses his teaching that he acted under the direction of Christ in doing what he did. While most Church members see the restoration of these scriptures as a precursor to the restoration, it would likely be better written,
"[He] organized what he said was a restoration of the early Christian church as was found in this book and his interpretation of the Bible."
or for brevity,
"[He] organized a "restoration" of the early Christian church as was found in this book and his interpretation of the Bible." Canadiandy1 ( talk) 23:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
Thanks John. Thumbs up! Canadiandy1 ( talk) 06:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
I discussed this at Talk:List of assassinated American politicians but apparently it must be discussed here as well. Smith's death was more of a shootout than an assassination ... he was armed and fired shots during the altercation. Cheers. Duke53 | Talk 00:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
This word from the Oxford English Dictionary: "the taking the life of any one by treacherous violence, esp. by a hired emissary, or one who has taken upon him to execute the deed."-- John Foxe ( talk) 01:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Huh? First, the term assassinated is not even in this article (unless I missed it somewhere). The neutral term 'killed' is used in both instances I saw and should, I feel, be left as is. LDS would prefer the term 'martyred' or 'murdered' but I can't see any argument on either side that he wasn't 'killed.' As to the fact he shot back, I am left to ask what the point of that has to do with anything. Some critics use it to paint Joseph in a poor light.
If I was in prison wrongfully, was aware of a government or mob conspiracy to take my life, and then had a mob of 100 vigilantes (makes them sound quite cowardly to me) storm my jail cell and didn't take up arms to defend my friends and safety, I'd be called a coward. As it turns out, he seems an amazing mix of noble, astute, and prudent. Love him, or hate him, he was no coward.
Canadiandy1 ( talk) 01:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
We understand you hate him. You're belaboring your point. Reminds me of the Longfellow lyric to "I Heard the Bells on Christmas Day," that reads, "For Hate is strong/And mocks the song/of Peace on Earth, good will to men." And I'm sure it is easy for you to judge him as you have probably also endured being poisoned, beaten, tarred, unjustly imprisoned in horrible conditions for months, had six children die in infancy and been sentenced to die by firing squad. Or at least maybe you've watched some movies about such occurrences.
Canadiandy1 ( talk) 06:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
Let's all have a cup o' tea and get back to the topic at hand. For all the bluster Canadiandy does have a valid point in that "kill" seems to sum it up rather nicely. Is there any problem with leaving it "killed"? - User:Padillah signed by B Fizz since Padillah forgot
Duke53 deserves a public apology. I made a sarcastic comment which thankfully Tedder reverted. From my view Duke53 has played by the rules on this discussion and I did not. He did not deserve my immature retort. I thought I had gotten over being petty over this issue and apologize to everyone for bringing down the decorum of the discussion. I have been treated with great courtesy over the last couple months by everyone here, and I am ashamed to have to admit to having acted so poorly, especially after having been treated so fairly.
Sincerely,
Canadiandy1 ( talk) 03:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
Having just noticed there, an unregistered contributor altered the lead paragraph and changed the description of the Language of the plates from "unknown language" to "reformed Egyptian". Immediately another anonymous editor then reverted this, only for Duke53 to revert again and entrench the disputed non-consensus modification to the page.
I do believe this ought to be discussed properly to reach an agreement. Many LDS scholars dispute that "reformed egyptian" was merely an adjective used to describe an "unknown language" than an actual subject title of a language in total. To explain, it is likely to have been used to describe a somewhat altered and unique variant of Egyptian, rather than be a "language in itself". This can easily be interpreted in either way.
Thus its worth noting that sticking "reformed egyptian" in the article as a "noun" can be saw very easily as a Point of View addition. The truth being we dont actually know what this language is, it is as the article should say an "unknown language", and its unfair to try and place it down to being anything else. Routerone ( See here!) 11:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Back on topic: I prefer the "unknown language" phrasing because calling it "reformed Egyptian" without qualification in the lede suggests to the typical reader that it's a common name or label for a known language, even with careful capitalization. The former phrase is less confusing in my opinion. alanyst / talk/ 19:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Did Joseph Smith know the language he was “translating”? A person cannot effectively “translate” a language one does not know. If he did not know the language, then even Joseph Smith was confused by the mystical process, because the process would be better described as receiving a dictation of something translated by a mysterious entity. My proposal:
During the late 1820s he became the leader of a small group of followers who believed that an angel had given him a book of golden plates written in a lost language described as “reformed Egyptian” and containing a religious history of ancient American peoples. Smith said that via supernatural means he had “translated” the writing on the plates into Biblical King James styled English. In 1830, he published the translation as the Book of Mormon and organized what he said was a restoration of the early Christian church.
I predict a fight over placing quotation marks around “translated”. If the quotation marks are removed, then editors would be with reason to add excessive verbiage explaining the oddities of the claim to translation. With the quotation marks the careful reader might realize there is more to look into if desired without distracting for the main summary that the paragraph is. Mormography ( talk) 15:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Mormography. "...yet you felt it necessary..." ", interesting" "hasty jump". I'm sensing sarcasm. I don't agree with COgden on many points, but if you are implying he is pushing some pro-Joseph agenda, I think you are greatly mistaken. I'm not sticking up for him, but I will stick up for unfair treatment here. No hard feelings, I made the same newcomer mistakes (and still do) earlier on. 173.180.120.36 ( talk) 04:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
The article reads that;
"Smith's followers revere him and regard his revelations as scripture, while he has sometimes been demonized by critics."
I know it's picky, but the grammar sounds wrong or disjointed to me. It just sounds awkward. Not sure, but maybe the word 'while' is in the wrong place.
Could it not simply read,
"Smith has been revered by his followers and demonized by several (many?) critics"
or
"While Smith's followers revered him as an inspired revelator, he was demonized by many critics."
I'm not arguing a POV here, simply grammar.
204.174.31.155 ( talk) 03:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
Another minor edit. Should this be in a new section? The article reads,
"Smith's death led to schisms in the Latter Day Saint movement."
Isn't the 'Latter Day Saint Movement" a result of the schism?
Should it not simply read,
"Smith's death led to a religious schism in the Church."
(Note, I have purposefully used the term 'the Church' because, while it will be understood by the LDS as referencing The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, at the same time it does not exclude the beliefs that others of the "Latter-Day Saint movement" have that the LDS faith broke from them.) Specific yet neutral. Short yet informative. Sassy but not too pretentious. Bold but not overbearing. Like a fine non-alcoholic wine.
Canadiandy1 ( talk) 04:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
Thanks, John, COgden, and BFizz, for your input, attention and improvements here.
173.180.103.98 ( talk) 04:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
This section seems extremely short and vague to have it be included. I know latter-day saints have much stricter of a moral code than this. On February 9, 1831 Smith dictated a very long and detailed revelation now known as "the law". This was a very basic summary of the ten commandments. He also installed the law of consecration a form of communalism, because it was considered unethical for one person to hold more property than another thus "the whole world lies in sin." He also believed science and religion agreed with one another. In this respect, certain aspects of the religion are similar to Baha'i Faith, and some Baha'ists regard him as a seer (but not a prophet). This because they believe one of his revelations foresees the occurrence of Bahá'u'lláh's proclamation as a Manifestation of God. Just type "Baha'i LDS" into google to find out. As for this:
"For instance, the Book of Mormon approved the killing of a man and appropriation of his property because the killer had been moved by the Holy Spirit. Smith believed he might occasionally violate laws and ethical norms in order to serve what he perceived as a higher religious purpose."
If this is referring to Nephi killing Laban, the assessment is simply inaccurate, because Nephi had the right to do so according to the law of moses; Laban had sought to kill him and his brothers previously. Usually if the Holy Ghost prompts someone under these circumstances, it is generally due to lack of knowledge. For someone not lds this can be viewed as rather peculiar.-- Samuel Clayton ( talk) 04:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I think I agree with you, Samuel Clayton. While the points made in the section may be valid, they are not, I feel, unique or important enough to warrant special treatment.
For example,
"Smith believed he might occasionally violate laws and ethical norms in order to serve what he perceived as a higher religious purpose."
Not a very unique statement. Wouldn't most people accept this ethic, that is that the direct will of God trumps a man-made law. Isn't that what Daniel got thrown in the lion's den over? And would anyone be surprised to learn that a man who claimed personal revelation from God would also place God's will higher than all others? Wouldn't that be a given? I think the only unique event of note was when it worked out the other way, when God forbade Joseph to show the manuscript of the some of the plate translations, and he then persisted to request permission to share them. And even then, he only did so after receiving permission (albeit qualified with a serious caution).
If we're looking for a chance to shorten this up, here's a good place to start. Drop the section but relocate the information on the Word of Wisdom and the Law of Consecration somewhere else.
173.180.103.183 ( talk) 08:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
I like some of the changes. I made a small edit; I removed the word 'yet' as it seemed to make it read more as a gotcha statement, though doubtless undesigned.
Canadiandy1 (
talk)
04:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
There is one aspect of this article that needs remodeling in my opinion. It is said in the section of theology of the family that Smith taught that plural marriage was the ultimate manifestation of the New and Everlasting Covenant. I have referenced the given source, and found it to be a clear stretch of what Smith said. Smith had only stated that those practicing polygamy were doing so under the direction of his revelations, and that they were blameless and would be exalted. If you wish to have that in the article, please do so. However, the problem with the current vision is that it says too much!
Every single source imaginable at least concurs that polygamy was not a part of the majority of Smith's followers. Logic concurs. If Smith taught this, what of all of his followers that were not practicing polygamy at the present time? Joseph Smith taught that for a man or woman to be exalted, they must be sealed by one having the authority for time and all eternity. He never said that a monogamous relationship was insufficient. I want a reference where he did.
The chiefest among those who refuse to let any revision stand that would correct this error has mormon garments on his page in the grossest disrespect. What a coincidence from an author trying to capture his version of "history". I want to capture the pure history of this man, monumental achievments and faults.
My suggested revision is the removal of plural before marriage, so that it says joseph smith taught that marriage was the ultimate manifestation of the new and everlasting covenant. Also, everything else suggesting he ever taught that plural marriage was the only way to salvation, which sorry to say, is half the paragraph which is exactly why it is erroneous.
If you wish to retain the page how it is, at least show me a reference other than the one falsely sited where Joseph Smith taught that a monogynous relationship would be insufficient for exaltation. That will require something more than pretending to be a scholar: actual scholarship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.213.53.41 ( talk) 02:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Good point, unsigned. We bantered this one earlier and came to a compromised outcome, but I think the work is unfinished. While I'm not convinced, I will allow that Joseph may have taught a 'fuller' exaltation through plural marriage. What is missing in the text though is the teaching of Smith that through monogamous Celestial Marriage an individual could also be exalted in the highest degree of the Celestial kingdom, an unlimited exaltation. So you are right to argue that in its present state the article is misleading. How would you recommend we add this key missing fact? Any help here COgden? Welcome, unsigned, and please stay to help. You have good insight.
Canadiandy1 ( talk) 18:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
I'm not seeing much input here, how about,
"Joseph Smith taught that full exaltation could be achieved only by women and men who were married within “the new and everlasting covenant.” (Doctrine and Covenants 132:19). He taught that a higher level of exaltation might be achieved through "plural marriage",[335] which was the ultimate manifestation of this New and Everlasting Covenant.[339]..."
Please note as a minor edit (in addition to the first sentence) I removed the parenthetical word 'Polygamy.' It originally followed the phrase 'plural marriage' which makes it quite redundant.
173.180.103.183 ( talk) 00:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
Current reference number 335 is attached to the following points:
Reference 355 is Foster (1981, p. 145). Foster 1981 refers to "Religion and Sexuality: The Shakers, the Mormons, and the Oneida Community", written by Lawrence Foster, published in 1981 by Oxford Press.
This url is provided for the Google Book preview of page 135 of the book. From there you can easily navegate to page 145 of the book. I read the page. It supports the first point clearly. However, the second two points are not clearly supported.
From my observation,
In conclusion, I feel that this source supports anon's suggestion to change "plural marriage" to "celestial marriage" for the indicated sentences. However, I'd like some more discussion before I try editing the section, since a little re-arranging will also be necessary to preserve the logical flow of the prose. ...comments? ~ B F izz 05:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I am the original unsigned instigator of the last edit regarding plural marriage. This is much better, and true. Perfectly done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Creightonian ( talk • contribs) 05:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
One last tweak? The section opens with the phrase, "Smith gradually unfolded...". Could we drop the word 'gradually'? I don't deny it took place over a number of years, but I think 'unfolded' suffices.
173.180.103.183 ( talk) 19:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
I think there are specific issues with this article which must be addressed. Some of the more controversial topics on Smith such as slavery or polygamy are well addressed, however they are all sourced on the same biography written by a member of the church. In fact, about 1/3 of the references in this article come from the biography: Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling by Richard Bushman. Richard Bushman has written many publications for the church. Can we find a more neutral reference for these topics please?
MichJEss ( talk) 11:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
You know, I actually agree with MichJEss that Bushman is not a good source, but likely for a completely different reason. I don't question his work or methodology, just his cynical approach. It seems that his aim is actually to focus on Joseph Smith's shortcomings not his strengths (or at least it seems that the information most referenced here is that which is juicy or inflammatory). So in the end you have two key sources, a bitter anti-Mormon and the only key academic Mormon researcher with a cynical focus.
So if you're questioning bias in the article, I agree fully with you. It's systemically way too anti-Mormon, though I do sense an increase in the dignity shown lately by contributors, who are showing great general sensitivity to the LDS community.
173.180.103.183 ( talk) 05:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
I don't like that reality, John, but I think you're bang on this time.
173.180.103.183 ( talk) 06:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
MichJEss, here's a space to describe what you believe is both cited to Bushman and is POV.-- John Foxe ( talk) 03:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
I reverted your good-faith edit because I thought the extra wording was helpful in establishing context especially to those unfamiliar with Mormonism. But I'd be happy to discuss it on the talk page if you challenge my reasoning. Best wishes, alanyst / talk/ 23:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I found this section incomplete.
Death is an important event in anyone’s life and maybe more so in Joseph Smiths case. To say “Five men were tried for his murder; all were acquitted.” is incomplete. Furthermore, it implies that they were innocent. This is not supported by the historical record. The results of that trial may have influenced other trials. A very brief summary is lacking. For example in the Wikipedia section for Nicole Brown Simpson, the trial of O.J. Simpson is summarized in this fashion: “O. J. Simpson was arrested and found not guilty of murdering both her and Goldman in a controversial criminal trial. He was later found liable for the deaths in a civil suit brought by the families of the two victims.” Something similar could be written about the five men arrested and acquitted in the Joseph Smith murder.-- Mdduffinmd ( talk) 02:17, 31 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdduffinmd ( talk • contribs) 01:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Saying "who founded the Latter-day Saint movement, a group of Churches" is misleading about Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith founded a Church, and it was always presented as The Church of Jesus Christ, with the notion that there could only be one true Church. It is true that there are multiple Churches today that claim Joseph Smith as their founder, and that acknowledging this fact is needed, still it seems the wording is inaccurate. What Joseph founded was not a group of Churches, he founded One Church which has multiple claimants for being its modern successor. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 23:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I am open to other wording uses than what I chose but we need to keep central that Joseph Smith founded a Church, not a movement. It was from the beginning clear that it had centralized authority, and the formation of later Churches is by clear breaks or by disputes on who actually holds the authority. I think the current wording strikes a compromise between the claims of Joseph as founder by multiple organizations and the fact that few if any of those organizations see Joseph as founding anything other than an organized and centralized Church. The formation was a Church, with a clear designation of Joseph as First Elder and Oliver Cowdery as second elder on the day it was organized. Although other parts of organization are later, the fact that designated titles come from the start shows this is the organization of a Church, something we have to emphasize in the article. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 23:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
John are you proposing that all major edits to the article be presented here on the discussion page until consensus is reached before editing the page? If that is what you are really proposing, then I would be more than happy to second that motion. However, all editors will need to abide by that same rule and not just those who make edits that are personally problematical for you. That sounds harsh, but you have a history of making wholescale edits without achieving any degree of consensus and then demanding that consensus be reached to change your edits. Just play fair and play by the exact rules that you like everyone else to abide. - Storm Rider 16:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Even if technically more accurate, I think the present edit is awkward and redundant prose. I'm trying to make an improvement that is sensitive to the above concerns. COGDEN 17:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
It seems to me that if we are going to bring up the Angel Moroni in the opening, we should bring up the First Vision. Yet that will just increase the length even more. I am trying to think of a way to do it quickly, moving most coverage lower. On the other hand part of me thinks a line like "Smith said he recieved visits and instruction from Jesus Christ and various angels and translated an set of ancient scriptures during the 1820s. In 1830 he published this translation as the Book of Mormon and organized the Church of Christ" would be better. The First Vision, the multiple visits from Moroni, the visits from John the Baptist and Peter, James and John to restore the priesthood are all hinted at in here, but the specific details are left for later. Some might object to te way the translating is discussed, but this is all prefaced with "Smith said" so really saying he said something again seems an unneccessary mitigation of his own words. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 05:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
We might try words other than "founder" to describe Smith's relation to the "movement", such as "origin" or "heart", though these are both awkward examples. "Prophet" has been tried and is inevitably problematic with some editors, who see it as an assertion of supernatural power rather than simply an assertion of cultural esteem. "Creator", "inventor", "instigator", "initiator"; these are also awkward or convey a strange POV. Just trying to brainstorm here, but "founder" is the best we've got, imho. ...comments? ~ B F izz 01:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
The problem with the phrase "his revelations are considered scripture" is that it is imprecise. Is every word that Smith uttered considered "revelation"? What about every word that he wrote? I think we need to be precise as to what his "revelations" are. I think we are specifically talking about the three books in the Standard Works (Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price). The article on the Standard Works mentions that these three books are the Standard Works of the LDS Church. Presumably, the rest of Mormonism (e.g. the Fundamentalist Mormons) also considers them to be Standard Works and I assume that they use that phrase. What about the rest of the Latter Day Saint movement? Do they also consider all three books to be "Standard Works"? What term do they use?
The article on the Standard Works mentions that the Standard Works are part of the open scriptural canon of the LDS Church. If you walked up to a member of the LDS Church and referred to the Doctrine and Covenants as "scripture", would they correct you and say that the Bible and the Book of Mormon are scripture but the Doctrine and Covenants are revelation that are part of the Standard Works? I just want to understand how Mormons use the word "scripture".
-- Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 16:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
During the last GA review, the non-biographical sections were rather new. Now that they have had time to mature, I think the article is ready to pass a GA review this time. Unless anyone feels that there are serious issues with good article criteria that need to be addressed, I will again nominate the article for Good Article status. ...comments? ~ B F izz 01:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
While this clearly belongs in the article, it seems not neccessary to mention Joseph's political position in the opening sentance. There are a lot of issues here, including that Joseph Smith did not become involved in politics in a direct way until after the Missouri expulsion. He never held a political office until then, and this could well have related to a feeling of betrayal by Col. Hinckle and a view that the best way to have good political leaders is to be one yourself. However another key is that Latter-day Saints did not see a clear line between political and religious, Jesus will reign literally as king, and especially once the government goes against you there is a feeling of a need for good government. This all seems to much for a the lead. On the other hand, maybe mentioning that Joseph Smith was mayor of Nauvoo, Illinois at the time of his death would work in the intro. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 05:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I reverted specifically because the phrase "in the 1820s" got moved from the beginning of a sentence to the end. (Generally, time references should come first in a sentence.) It's important to keep the biographical events in chronological order.-- John Foxe ( talk) 12:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected}} All references to the church on this page are incorrect. They are all "Latter Day Saints," which is incorrect. The official title is Latter-day Saints. And the church's official name is "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." "Latter" is hyphenated with a lowercase "day." This is a non-debatable issue. You either have someone's name correct or wrong, no in-between.
B0cean ( talk) 21:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
The lead to an article should inform people about the topic it discusses, in this case Joseph Smith. Saying he is "controversial" does not inform people. Say what he did, not what people think of him in the lead. There is no religion founder who is not controversial. There are multiple religions that posit that their teachings are correct and all other religions are false, thus Mohammad, Buddha, Jesus, Moses, Confucius and other religion founders will all be seen as setting up false systems by some people. The same could be said for Mary Baker Eddy and most modern religion founders, saying they are controversial says nothing. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 05:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
All of the Mormons I have ever known or met (including some Mormon missionaries) calle him "Joseph Smith"; no one calls him "Joseph Smith, Jr." This really should be in the introduction. Shocking Blue ( talk) 17:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Interesting suggestion. However, since his Father was a person of influence within the early church (First Church Patriarch), and since there were two other Joseph Smiths (Joseph Fielding Smith and Joseph F. Smith) who served as Church Presidents it might be important to identify him this way initially in the article.
173.180.103.183 ( talk) 06:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Amadscientist ( talk) 13:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
This artcle is long and detailed and will require a substantial amount of time. Editors please be patient. If it is determined that a hold is appropriate, it will begin once this reviewer has completed work.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 13:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
In order to pass a GA nomination the article must meet the following standards:
Reviewer notes:
Images must comply with Manual of Style guidlines Wikipedia:Images and Wikipedia:Image use policy: Each image has a corresponding description page. On that page, one should document the source, author and copyright status of the image, using one of the pre-defined image copyright tags. It is important to add both descriptive (who, what, when, where, why) and technical (equipment, software, etc.) information at the time of creating the page, which will be useful and highly informative to later editors and readers.
Whenever you upload an image, you should meet the following minimal requirements.
While many of the images are Public domain, their use on wikipedia in a GA article must have the proper information for consideration.
The following images have issues that need to be addressed to meet GA criteria:
*Joseph_Smith_first_vision_stained_glass.jpg = This image is owned by the Public Broadcasting sytem and it still retains the rights to this image. As stated in the terms of service: The Information available on PBS ONLINE® may include intellectual property that is protected under the copyright, trademark and other intellectual property laws of the United States and/or other countries ("Intellectual Property Laws"). Such Intellectual Property Laws generally prohibit the unauthorized reproduction, distribution or exhibition of all text, photographic and graphic (art and electronic) images, music, sound samplings and other protected materials. The violation of applicable Intellectual Property Laws may give rise to civil and/or criminal penalties.
While some two dimensional images are faithful reproductions Wikimedia commons states: When a photograph demonstrates originality (typically, through the choice of framing, lighting, point of view and so on), it qualifies for copyright even if the photographed subject is itself uncopyrighted. This is typically the case for photographs of three-dimensional objects, hence the rule of thumb that "2D is OK, 3D is not". The work presented in the image is NOT a mere 2 dimensional work. Stained glass requires "choice of framing, lighting, and point of view" as using a simple flash at anytime of day or night would NOT produce the image you see as well as the fact that the work is meant to be viewed from multiple angles in the same way as a sculpture, which by definition stained glass is.
In short, the license is incorrect and the original source STILL claims copyright. This image cannot be used for GA (or Wiki at all for that matter).
. Although many materials such as stained glass and fabric possess some three-dimensional texture, at ordinary viewing distances this texture is essentially invisible. As long as the surface is not noticeably curved or tattered/broken, and the original work is old enough to have entered the public domain, it is considered a faithful reproduction of the original with no original contribution.--
Amadscientist (
talk)
06:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I'll take a look at addressing the image copyright issues. If anyone else gets to it before me, then all the better. ...comments? ~ B F izz 20:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
I emailed the Church History Museum, asking a few questions about the image. I might just take a trip to Salt Lake and photograph it myself. I've found various versions of this image online, but none under a permissible license:
I also found a similar work of art that we might consider photographing and uploading, if the original work is not copyrighted.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/7156208@N02/412617797/in/photostream/
...comments? ~ B F izz 22:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
BFizz, I believe I have a handle on the infobox painting. I found the original source and author of the first image before upload. If all that was done was photoshop work to improve the image, than the information can be used.--
Amadscientist (
talk) 01:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
It's not the same image. I will continue to research this one out. It would be a shame to lose it. Nice image.--
Amadscientist (
talk)
01:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
The infobox image is easily replaced but I do intend to see if I can find the nicer version even after the review is closed. It's just a really nice image and if we can't find the original source we will have to replace with the original upload as that is from the Church archives online while the other one is not. I have found two sites that use this image but they are both message boards that mat well have taken the image from wiki. The others can simply be deleted from the article if they cannot be fixed with no loss of quality to the article itself, but work is underway to correct them by another editor.
Work this out guys. Seriously. The article just came off protection and when I began the review it seemed to be holding stable. It has lost that stability which endangers the review. One criteria for "Quick Fail" is stablity. At this point I am NOT giving up with a quick fail but if this can't be smoothed out, GA standards that might be worked out may simply be lost within hours or days if it passes GA nomination.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 02:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry. but that is simply incorrect. If the article is experiancing so many reverts that it is protected...it is unstable. The protection has been lifted and the constant reverts return. The review guidlines state "Edit warring, etc", so even though there are no real edit wars among the contributing editors, it is far from stable. I am talking about a single day. March 5th, were there was section blanking, vandalism, and simple disagreements on content and accuracy. The article is not stable. I am NOT quick failing over the issue for one reason...it wasn't so when I began. However, I am failing the stability portion of the review.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 08:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
The lede has one major problem.....it has little to do with Smith himself and skips a lot of the article to speak almost exclusively about the church. This need to be a tight summary of the overall article. which leads me to the next major problem...
Can you give us specifics on what major portions of Smith's life the lede is skipping? Or portions of the lede that are excessive detail and can be removed? ...comments? ~ B F izz 02:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
A quick look at the article shows that there are really two subjects being discussed. The man and his church. While the church IS a part of the man's life, and a major part, the artcile needs focus. What is the article about. The man or his church or both. If both, then perhaps, simply renaming the article would be appropriate.
He organized the church when he was 24, and died at 44, so nearly his entire adult life was deeply intertwined with the church. The article is about Smith, but it's virtually impossible to say anything about his adult life without talking about his church as well. The Church of Christ (Latter Day Saints) and History of the Latter Day Saint movement are the main articles about his church. If you have any suggestions of information that we can leave out of this article and treat exclusively in those articles, please do tell. ...comments? ~ B F izz 02:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
The article lacks focus and is far too broad in scope. Seperating the man from the church is not impossible and simply using information from other wikipedia articles as the basis for this article, while appropriate, is not enough. There is a great deal of information available and can be referenced and cited. http://www.google.com/search?q=Joseph+Smith+Jr.+the+man&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1 -- Amadscientist ( talk) 03:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
There are some reference, note, source and citation problems. This will take some time to go through. Bare with me please as I write up specifics. Thanks.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 05:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
This is what I find in just the first 5 notes:
The following note seems to be somewhat promotional and has no context to either the USA today reference or the unsubstantiated claim in notes. Community of Christ (2009), General Denominational Information, http://www.cofchrist.org/news/GeneralInfo.asp#membership, retrieved December 17, 2009 (second largest Latter Day Saint movement denomination claiming approximately 250,000 members). This is only one denomination. This simply does not relate to either claims.
Substantiate the LDS figure and lose the Community of Christ note.
The claim must reflect the reference. It should say “The family knew poverty, but by the time of Joseph junior’s birth their circumstances had improved.” The reference needs to give the specific page which is 19.
The reference from Bushman is on page 21. We do not need the rest. JUST page 21. Either fix the reference OR expand the claim to reflect the information found in the other pages.
In reading the actual references against the prose I see clear OR and bias attempting to make the life sound worse than it really was.
Note 6 = I see no mention of the term "Second Great Awakening" in this reference. The use of the Peacock term "Hotbed" is unencyclopedic. The reference merely mentions "revivals" of such great regularity that the district became known as the "Burnt district". Yes, it is speaking of this period but did not do so outright. To use this as the reference to that statement is stretching. You would need the reference and source to say this in one way or another and it really doesnt.
References have a few problems as well:
Notes have some big problems with bias and OR. They do not seem to be completely following the source and in some instances are showing they simply do not support claims at all. This is a serious problem for a Wikipedia article, let alone for GA. Formating is just not to standard with overlinking, dead links and unreferenced claims. Not every note has such problems but clearly need a good deal of attention by a disinterested editor to go through line by line and make much needed editing.
References on the other hand are not as bad but contain similar problems that must be corrected. I really think the overlinking is really bad. It confuses the reader and makes navigating the sources very difficult. If you have wikilinked the notes and the references as a means of guiding the reader to specifc articles it doesn't help with a list this long right next to external links to to e-books, many of which do not go to the specific page were the reference would be found. If the external link does not go directly to the reference, why bother? It's not a conveniance.
I've deleted these tables from the main article and moved them here for discussion:
Leaders of the
Church of Christ, later called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints | |
---|---|
Founding president | Leader Claiming Succession Position in the Church of Christ Title & denomination Years |
Joseph Smith, Jr. (1830–1844) | |
Brigham Young was President of the Quorum of the Twelve President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 1844–1877 | |
Joseph Smith III was Direct Descendant of Joseph Smith, Jr.
President of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints later called the
Community of Christ | |
James Strang was an Elder with a Letter of appointment President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Strangite) 1844–1856 | |
Sidney Rigdon was senior surviving member of the First Presidency Guardian of the Church of Christ later called the Church of Jesus Christ of the Children of Zion or Rigdonites 1844–1847 |
Personally, I don't think they add anything to the article. The succession information is better written as prose, and can be found in the "Succession Crisis" article. Also, there is no consistent series of boxes used by Nauvoo mayors, most of whom don't have Wikipedia pages. COGDEN 08:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
OK, "Hotbed" is repeated now in the lede. I don't remember seeing it there before. Its a Peacock term. I am also seeing a repeated usage of terms and descriptions that make the article less reliable to the source. For the most part the writing is not bad. But the lede now contains the same phrase found in the "Early years" section. I had mentioned this only in the reference and note section as it pertained to the misuse of the reference...but now it needs to be addressed on it's own.
Another problem with the prose that I'll mention here intead of the reference and notes review section is the over abundence of notes breaking up the sentences throughout the article. It makes it very difficult to read. It is particularly bad from the sections, "Life in Ohio (1831–38))" up to the section "Death".
Example:
Mob attacks began in July 1833,[116] but Smith advised the Mormons to patiently bear them[117] until a fourth attack, which would permit vengeance to be taken.[118] This just does not seem necessary.
I have a few thoughts regarding this section. I referred to Rough Stone Rolling pages 51-53 (through the Google books preview). Bushman states that "Work on the Stowell and Knight farms was not the only magnet drawing Joseph Smith back. While at home, he told his mother about Miss Emma Hale..." Bushman correlates his farm work to meeting and seeing Emma, while we state that he met her "during one of these treasure quests". The way our article currently phrases it, it makes it sound like Smith's work during this period consisted exclusively of treasure hunting. From what I understand, the treasure hunting was more of a side-venture compared to his farm work during those years. Also, it would probably be good to at least mention the Stowells by name. Our article seems to suggest that Smith performed treasure hunting for various employers, while Bushman seems to suggest he was almost always working with/for the Stowells. I can't really find anywhere that Bushman says he was paid directly for his treasure seeking, rather than, for example, getting a cut of the findings. The only suggestion that he was compensated is when Bushman states that "In 1825, when the family needed money, Joseph Jr. agreed to help Stowell find the spanish gold..."
On a different note, Bushman says that when Joseph asked for Emma's hand in marriage, her father Isaac Hale objected because Joseph was "a stranger, and followed a business that I could not approve", apparently referring to his treasure hunting. It might be good to mention this as Emma's parents' reason for "disapproving the match".
tl;dr - this section needs a few modifications in order to fit with the sources cited. ...comments? ~ B F izz 22:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Bushman page 47 says "In October, 1825, Joseph and his father took jobs digging in Pennsylvania for Josiah Stowell Sr." - thus placing Joseph in the manual labor position in a "treasure hunt." Then page 48 says "[in 1826] Josiah Stowell Sr. employed him to do farm chores and perhaps work in the mills...Joseph's experience in clearing the Smith farm made him a useful hand..." On page 48, Bushman also explains that the Smiths were to receive 2/11 of the gold/ore discovered, making no other mention of repayment. Bushman narrates that JSJr convinced Stowell to stop digging; it seems doubtful that the Smiths were profiting from this particular failed excursion. ...comments? ~ B F izz 08:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
In the Bushman text I've read about Smith being employed by two men for treasure seeking
Foxe insists that Smith performed treasure-seeking, hired by various employers. Can someone please quote some authoritative sources to back that up? ...comments? ~ B F izz 01:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I find this edit of John Foxe's to be argumentative and a misrepresentation of the sources; see Bushman pp. 47-53. Since he and I seem to be at an impasse, and I don't want to cross the line into edit warring, will other editors besides us please opine whether the edit is appropriate or not? Thanks, alanyst / talk/ 22:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Ouch, Stormrider. I agree it is poor form to cite Howe. But to accuse someone of work parallel to that of Ed Decker seems a little harsh. Brodie perhaps, but Decker? My favorite trivia about Decker is that "one of his associates offered to exorcise the Tanners' demons, and expressed great sadness when they refused" because of the Tanners' accusation that his writings weren't as subtle as theirs in leading LDS members from their religion. Such fun watching the dogs barking at the caravan turn on each other.
173.180.123.61 ( talk) 02:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy
Can someone explain to me the merits of COgden's position. I believe he is suggesting that even though the author of a history is clearly biased and therefore unreliable, his writing is relevant because it contains some accurate sources. My position would be to throw out the author's work. If there is an accurate reference or item in the writing source it independently. Otherwise the item itself can be seen as less reliable by association. It may take a little more work, but if the jobs worth doing, isn't it worth doing right? 173.180.123.61 ( talk) 21:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy
Good point, Stormrider.
173.180.123.61 ( talk) 15:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy
The article reads;
[Emma's]strong opposition to plural marriage "made her doubly troublesome."[426]
Was this a direct quote from a church member? The reference only links to Bushman. Is this Bushman's own interpretation or if he is quoting another individual? Can we have the original source please? As it reads now it seems to connect this quote to the Church leadership, where in reality it may actually be Emma's personal narrative.
Even with the source, the way this is presented is biased in at least two ways. It either suggests that the Church was disrespectful of Emma as an individual, or to the other extreme that Emma's opposition of polygamy was wrong. And I don't buy the argument that since it is biased in both extremes it is somehow balanced.
What's wrong with stating that Emma felt the leadership of the Church were disappointed/frustrated with her position. If this is actually the case according to a reliable source.
Canadiandy1 ( talk) 22:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy
Because where it sits it is confusing as to whether it is the words of Brigham Young, Emma Smith, some early church leader or the historian Bushman. Canadiandy1 ( talk) 05:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy
Thanks for the history. I agree about not parroting Bushman, the article is not about him. I also wonder what evidence Bushman might have had that church leaders' opinions of Emma personally were negative. Without supporting evidence, better terminology would look like;
'Emma's actions caused them concern,' or, 'the leaders were frustrated by her actions.'
(responding to this edit summary) Duke, out any of my comments above, can you please tell me where I have given "personal reasons"? I'm pretty sure I gave editorial reasons for this. What you call "my interpretation" is a very obvious derivation of Bushman's words. Please stop wikilawyering under the false mantra of protecting sourced quotations. There's no policy that says we should prefer direct quotes over clearer wording. ...comments? ~ B F izz 17:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
The way it reads now (Her strong opposition to plural marriage further complicated her relationship with the church) is much, much better. Thanks, all. The facts remain in the text but are now written in a more neutral and clear manner.
173.180.123.61 ( talk) 18:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy
ASniper, I will give you that Emma's positions/rejections created problems for the leadership. But the term 'troublesome' is loaded and I disagree that Emma was 'troublesome.' Her actions created troubles for leadership, perhaps. But labeling Emma in such a way is like calling one's child 'bad.' The social standard recommends labeling the action and not the child.
173.180.123.61 ( talk) 18:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy
![]() | Historical note inserted in retrospect: this discussion relates to article versions near
418527466 regarding the caption accompanying a portrait of
Emma Hale Smith, located in the Legacy > Family and Descendants section. The caption reads:
|
I feel that the information contained in the caption of Emma Hale Smith does not belong there. I'm not suggesting that we remove the text entirely, just that we move it into that section. As it stands, the image does not follow consistency with the rest of the article's images. What does everyone else think? Thanks, w7jkt talk 19:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I have no doubt that you view that statement important. I contend, however, that "first wife" does not suggest that Emma died, it suggests more than one wife. It's blatantly obvious when taken in context. But it still remains that if the caption remains a statement contained within the section, then the other captions must be changed as well for consistency. Thanks, w7jkt talk 19:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm with you, W7jkt. It seems in poor taste that the summation of Emma Smith's legacy is her stand on Polygamy. This is the lady who was the mother of all of Joseph's children (despite conflicting records no DNA evidence has ever proven otherwise). She stood by him through all of his persecutions, lost multiple children in childbirth, adopted and raised others with Joseph, endured Joseph's murder, stayed behind when the Saints left for the West; and all we see when scanning the article is about her position on polygamy. I'm sorry I wasn't involved in any previous discussion. No offense to those who debated this one previously but I agree with W7jkt that the caption read simply;
"Emma Hale Smith, first wife of Joseph Smith."
Even more dignified for the descendants of Joseph would be,
"Emma Hale Smith, wife of Joseph Smith."
But I'm sure we'd never get away with that one.
173.180.123.61 ( talk) 17:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy
If the image were to be found in a section on 'plural marriage' it might be seen as potentially appropriate. However the section is on 'Family and Descendants'. It is not reliably proven that Joseph had any children outside his marriage to Emma. So it simply looks like muckraking to highlight Emma's position on polygamy so prevalently while downplaying the amazingly challenging and compassionate work she performed in raising her several children through such challenging circumstances. You can argue this is a LDS sentiment, but I don't believe respect for the dignity of the role of mothers is exclusive to Mormonism. And as long as mindless academia trumps dignity, we're going to keep having problems with this article.
Canadiandy1 ( talk) 21:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy
Whoa. I have reviewed the past discussion on the subject. Nowhere in that discussion was W7jkt's point "...the information contained in the caption of the Emma Hale Smith does not belong there. I'm not suggesting that we remove the text entirely, just that we move it into that section. As it stands, the image does not follow."
raised significantly. His point is not about the text itself, but its location in the caption box. This is a new point which deserves to be discussed. What's the rush?
Canadiandy1 ( talk) 02:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy
BFizz, I greatly appreciate the improvements you have been able to make here thanks to your time and contributions. My concern is not that the wording is not a huge improvement, but whether it belongs there at all. The same information should be held within the text, so that Emma's entire life is not summed up according to her position on polygamy. What would be so horrible if the caption read something like;
"Married to Joseph in January 1827, Emma was the mother of seven natural and two adopted children."
The information on her position on polygamy could then be placed in the section's second paragraph where it seems to fit naturally.
This woman, love her or hate her, raised 9 children through incredibly trying circumstances. How is this trumped by her position on polygamy and the dispute that she did or didn't know Joseph was "married" again in a literal or dynastic way. Replacing a clear family reality with a speculative, debated, and critical item makes no sense.
I have no more to say on the wording, but I want to voice my opinion that the debate on the location of the caption's text is far from closed.
173.180.123.61 ( talk) 18:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy
John Foxe,
I'm going to drop this one. It seems that there is too much appetite for branding Emma as a liar. Maybe we can deal with it later when things have cooled down a little. But I will repeat that it is not 'that' it is stated, but 'where' it is stated. And does it really matter whether the article calls her a liar first and then informs us she had several children, or instead refers to her as a mother and then calls her a liar? Either way your opinion is validated.
173.180.123.61 ( talk) 20:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy
Yes, most women have children. And all people die. Just because it is common (and was inevitable) does that mean we stop putting up headstones? Judging from what I read on headstones we usually honor deceased individuals by recognizing their family connections as their primary accomplishment, regardless of what they are popular for.
173.180.123.61 ( talk) 20:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy
[discussion regarding adultery moved to new section]
I believe it was COgden who made a change I never saw discussed in which the article now refers to the church Joseph Smith founded as a 'primitivist' church. While Joseph Smith did identify the church as a reflection of the 'primitive Christian church' his word usage in context referred to the original church organized by Christ and did not mean any discredit (why would he discredit the church he was patterning [his] work after?). The term 'primitivist' in our modern context however seems to reflect backwards thinking or even old-fashioned. Clearly, the term 'restorationist' is more reflective of his aim, more clear, and more courteous to those of the Latter Day Saint movements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiandy1 ( talk • contribs) 07:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Perfect, BFizz! COgden. I see your point in phrasing, and I don't like the idea of dumbing down the article, but I think it is important to point out that most readers of the article will not be familiar with the phraseology often used here. While the term 'primitivist' may be accurate, my vote is for terminology more common to the majority of readers.
173.180.123.61 ( talk) 07:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy
The point isn't whether Mormons understand the term, but whether common readers do. Why use the term 'pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis' when 'lung disease' will do?
173.180.123.61 ( talk) 01:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy
I disagree, COgden. The best solution is what BFizz suggests;
"He organized a church named the Church of Christ, calling it a restoration of the church established by Jesus Christ."
What problem do you have with his wording?
173.180.123.61 ( talk) 02:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy
Are we wording this just so we can advertise for the "Disciples of Christ" page? Let's call this what it is, and not what it is like. I understand if there is a link from Christian primitivism back to this article if this fits that definition, but I don't see the need to try and jam this peg into a hole on another pegboard. The peg might even fit, but what's the need? Let's stop defining other people's religions by what we think they are or aren't like. You say, "...it's important to categorize early Mormonism as a form of Christian primitivism." I think it's important to stop categorizing religions, and to start respecting them for their individual beliefs and values.
But if it's simply about being wordy or increasing the mere number of links to other pages, then I have no further improvements to suggest.
173.180.123.61 ( talk) 19:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy
[originally a continuation of the "Emma Hale Smith caption" talk section above.]
Mr. Foxe, I am finding quite a few sources concerning Smith's adultery and fornication; when I get them sorted I feel that this should be mentioned by name in this article. ...comments ?
An example:
I would only be replacing a term with a statement that says the same thing but in a way that fits the context better. I'm sure that editors on this page believe that this is allowable at WP. Duke53 | Talk 20:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Alas, COgden has been designated as worthy of response. My heart is broken and my tears can't stop. Oh, well, I am still eager to see the references. Curious, Smith did nto have a "definition", certainly one that does not conflict with any known definitions today. However, there is that spin issue that some have. Regardless, let's see what comes up. You trolls and stalkers stop pestering poor Duke. - Storm Rider 08:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I have opened a request for arbitration concerning Duke53's behavior. I think any further commentary regarding him, positive or otherwise, should be taken to that venue so that the content issues may be the focus here. alanyst / talk/ 14:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
We used to state here that Smith's vision was not well known among early saints. The references for this statement appear to remain in footnote 16, but we've since cut the statement out. The refs don't seem to have anything to do with "God told him...that all churches were false", and so need to be cleaned up.
Recently, someone tried changing "God told him" to "God (the Father) and Jesus Christ (the Son) appeared to him and told him". Foxe reverted, saying that "Bushman doesn't say this". However, the quoted Bushman page is 39, where he was summarizing Smith's 1832 account. Bushman then says at the end of page 39, "At first, Joseph was reluctant to talk about his vision", and at the top of page 40, "When he described his First Vision in 1832, he abbreviated the experience. ¶ As Joseph became more confident, more details came out." I'm not suggesting we assume Bushman's POV here—he is obviously providing apologetic reasoning for the differences between versions—but it is wrong to assume Bushman doesn't support that "Smith said God and Jesus appeared to him". ...comments? ~ B F izz 16:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
According to the Joseph Smith history, it plainly states i.e. there is no confusion or ability to misunderstand, that the first vision was not limited to a forgiveness of sins and it had a major impact on his life. Strange that something so significant is tossed aside. Is that done with Bernadette Soubirou? The quick answer is no; nor with Jesus, Muhammad, etc. etc. etc. - Storm Rider 14:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I think this article, or any other similar to it (i.e., where the subject is a controversial religious or political leader with a well studied and documented life), should achieve the following:
Does anyone have anything to add to this vision, or to contest? Having a collective vision akin to this would help guide our discussions and provide a foundation of mutual trust. A lot of arguments seem to stem from one side thinking the other side is trying to distort the article into something that favors their point of view. Agreement on what a non-distorted article might entail could perhaps avoid that sort of conflict. alanyst / talk/ 22:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
COgden, your remarks don't recognize the distinction I've tried to draw. Questions of historical fact should rightfully be answered by reliable historians, as expressed in the secondary sources they produce. The first two bullet points I offered above cover that aspect of a biographical article, both the agreed-upon and disputed questions of fact. But historical fact is not, in my opinion, the only aspect of a person's life that an encyclopedia article should endeavor to address. The third bullet point covers the realm of opinion regarding that person, and in general the notable opinions will not be limited to those of the scholars—they will also belong to the person's significant friends, enemies, the general public (with caveats), and himself or herself. Wikipedia should not endorse anyone's opinion of an article's subject, but ought to describe the important ones. Your examples of fringe views seem to speak to the objective (historical) aspects such as whether he did or said X, not the subjective aspects I meant to cover with that third bullet point such as judgments of his character, intentions, motivations, inbound and outbound influences, and so forth. alanyst / talk/ 06:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
We have previously kept record of this page's archives manually in the infobox near the top of the page. I suggest we switch to using this template: {{archives|search=yes|bot=MiszaBot I|age=14 days}} I've made the change already, but wanted to add this section here to make sure we could discuss it in case anyone is against it. ...comments? ~ B F izz 07:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I hesitate to embrace Storm's comparison between "scripture" describing Joseph Smith's life and "scripture" describing the life of Jesus; there are many differences, for example, the life of Smith is much more well-documented outside of scripture. However, it is true that The life of Jesus in the New Testament is written following the chronology of Jesus' life, rather than addressing the gospels in chronological order of when they were written; I can see where Storm's "double-standard" accusation is coming from. ...comments? ~ B F izz 00:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I think we are missing the elephant in the room, cultural history. We live in a culture which is heavily based in the traditions of the Catholic (Christian) practices. 500 years ago if you dared to criticize Jesus you were killed as a heretic. And the practice has endured of people raising a stink over disrespect for popular religious figures (Mohammed, Allah, Jesus, God ...). To avoid the reaction to such we have traditionally kept quiet on such matters. Now along comes Joseph Smith. Two differences arise. One, Joseph Smith is not accepted by the mainstream of American culture. Two, the LDS people take a pacifistic approach to religious persecutions against them. In essence, Mormons have become "fair game" because they do not have the critical numbers to support their position and because there is a common cultural acceptance of mocking their beliefs openly.
So what is the solution? I hope I am not offending anyone, but in the U.S. there seems to still be a culture of selective discrimination. I am more in favour of the general European model (the Swiss situation being atypical) of universal tolerance of all cultures and faiths, whether one likes them or not. I believe what I, and others, have been arguing all along is that our religious heritage be treated with the same dignity and respect as is shown others. I mean no offense, but it seems to me that most of the editors here are from the USA. My more 'progressive' non-LDS friends would likely call the tone here a bit 'redneck.' (I agree, it would be kind of hypocritical for them to stereotype 'stereotypers'). I am able to look beyond the regional characteristics and would argue this is not an individual, or even regional problem, but it is a systemic one. I wonder what this article would look like if it were researched and edited by contributors from a more Muslim or Jewish or Lutheran background (each culture having experience with religious discrimination). Again, no offense is intended here, but as an outsider to the American culture I felt my observations might be helpful.
As long as the individual editors here are going to continue with their labeling and defamation of Joseph Smith as a liar, an adulterer, and a traitor (and then turn the same dirty brush on a mother of 9 who knew a life of incredible hardship and persecution) the problem won't end. As long as the key editors here have a negative attitude toward this religiously sensitive figure the problem won't end. The article will be stuck in the miry clay of intolerance, and common readers will be left with a cynical and skeptical view of Wikipedia as a whole.
I've been calling for a paradigm shift here all along. Not to push Joseph Smith. To push fairness. I would be just as vocal if Luther, or Mohammed, or Billy Graham were treated in the same insensitive way. I know it is not likely that the same editors who brought us to this point will be the ones to fix the problem. But as long as these posts are archived, I figure I'd wade in and offer my thoughts for improvement.
Canadiandy1 ( talk) 21:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy
Oh, believe me, I was not offering Bob Sr. as a gold standard. I was offereing it as an example of an article edited by John Foxe that is a complete powder puff, but one that is obviously acceptable to Foxe. That is a flagrant double standard perfectable acceptable to Fox.
Now we have a proposal to compare it to L Ron Hubbard. Tell me boys and girls does this fish stink? Is that why it was chosen? Particularly when the comparison initially was with the Jesus and the Muhammad articles. Are not Jesus and Muhammad founders of religions? Why are they not appropriate? - Storm Rider 13:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I think this disagreement stems from differences in people's vision of what this article should be. I'll start a discussion below. alanyst / talk/ 22:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Why is the fact that he was tried and convicted of being a con artist being white washed.
"State Of New York v. Joseph Smith"
State court records prove the Smith was arrested in New York in 1826 for being a con artist. "Warrant issued upon written complaint upon oath of Peter G. Bridgeman, who informed that one Joseph Smith of Bainbridge was a disorderly person and an impostor. Prisoner brought before the Court March 20, 1826. Prisoner examined: says that he came from the town of Palmyra ... that he had a certain stone which he occasionally looked at to determine where hidden treasures in the bowels of the earth were; that he professed to tell in this manner where gold mines were a distance under ground ... he pretended to tell by looking at this stone where coined money was buried in Pennsylvania, and while at Palmyra he frequently ascertained in that way where lost property was of various kinds..." (Court records of New York). While the Mormons claimed this never happened, Jerald and Sandra Tanner published the microfilm copies of the court records in 1971, under the title, Joseph Smith's 1826 Trial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.25.6.27 ( talk) 21:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Joseph Smith's 1826 trial (microfilm listed on Google Books published by Jerald and Sandra Tanner).
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.25.6.27 ( talk) 21:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
'Con Artist' is not a very neutral phrase. The fact that it is used reveals the bias we are working against in this article. When will the vicious tone end?
Canadiandy1 ( talk) 14:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy
The phrase "commonly known as Mormonism" after "founder of the Latter Day Saint movement" was removed on the grounds that the term "Mormon" refers specifically to the church following Brigham Young taking over. While I am not a Mormon, from what I understand, this may be technically correct. However, I still think the term "Mormon" should appear somewhere in the lead because many readers will only know the movement by that name, and I do want to make clear to them what we're talking about. Perhaps something like "which led to the movement known as Mormonism" or something of that nature?
For what it's worth, the lead our article Latter Day Saint movement presents the two terms as synonymous, but our article Mormonism does not. Kansan ( talk) 15:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Why should these descriptors appear in the second sentence of the lead? They all depend on Smith's founding and leadership of the Latter Day Saint movement. What did Smith write? What city did he ever successfully plan? Weren't his attempts at military leadership and involvement in politics absolute disasters?-- John Foxe ( talk) 10:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
It certainly doesn't matter if the projects failed. The real issue is if it's important enough to be in the lede. I mean, if George Washington collected butterflies, would anyone care? Would anyone care enough for it to be mentioned in the lede on George Washington? Likewise, is/should Joseph Smith be known for being a presidential candidate, or are there a half-dozen things more important? tedder ( talk) 17:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Serious John Foxe? When I first read your entry I actually thought for a moment that someone might have hacked your account. Very disappointing to see an editor who has been becoming more and more fair minded over the past few months suddenly do an about turn. Sad, really. Are you purposely trying to set the pendulum swinging again? I will give that Joseph Smith might not be a great author, but only if we are willing to accept the premise that the Book of Mormon is actually authored by Ancient prophets of God through revelation. Otherwise, the Book of Mormon is an amazing work of literature, inspired or not.
Disappointedly,
173.180.109.246 ( talk) 01:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy
Most participants of the conversation have agreed that we should, or conceded that we could, include a second sentence in the first paragraph of the lede, mentioning additional aspects of Smith's life. The following aspects have been suggested:
I think most of us could agree to leave off writer/author due to the ambiguity of what Smith "wrote". His writings are notable for their religious content, anyways, and the idea of him being a religious leader is already portrayed. The phrase "failed military leader" is unheard of on Wikipedia, (contrast with "military leader") so I doubt it would be appropriate here. "Theocratic ruler" is also rare (slightly more common: "theocratic leader"), though this is understandable, (theocratic rulers are probably much rarer than failed military leaders) so I'm somewhat open to that wording. There's been hesitation to touch the subject (by everyone except Foxe), but quite frankly "polygamist" is also a big part of understanding who Joseph Smith was.
Therefore, I propose something along these lines for the second sentence: "He was also a city planner, politician, military leader, theocrat, and a polygamist." The idea struck me to say "He was also influential as..." to begin that sentence, but I have mixed feelings about that. ...comments? ~ B F izz 03:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
mainstream view is that joseph smith was a conscious fraud. it is impossible to reconcile his laughable "scriptures" with history and/or common sense. but by all means, don't mention it in your lead, wikipedia; portray him as a "religious leader." lol 99.255.117.65 ( talk) 05:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
The words "more than ten years after founding the church" have been removed several times from the caption of the image that concerns the First Vision. This removal is an attempt to prevent casual readers from discovering a significant feature about Smith's First Vision: that there is no independent record of Joseph Smith having reported the vision for more than a decade after it supposedly occurred. In other words, removing those words is an POV attempt to remove helpful information for the casual reader, who will probably look at images first. Many individuals through the centuries have had visions of gods; rarely, if ever, have they concealed their visions for years. This aspect of Joseph Smith's behavior makes the words "more than ten years after founding the church" significant to the understanding of the casual reader.-- John Foxe ( talk) 15:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
There seems to be a pointed effort to interpret the later publication of Joseph Smith's first vision as some negative criticism. Again, I am personally quite comfortable now seeing the negativism so severe here. It actually makes it more likely fair-minded readers will look to sites such as lds.org for more reliable information on the subject. The louder you yell at people not to look at the elephant in the room, the more likely they'll be interested.
So why might Joseph have focused on a publication of his First Vision later in life? Those who know anything about his history will have read his canonized history. In his own words,
"Some few days after I had this vision, I happened to be in company with one of the Methodist preachers, who was very active in the before mentioned religious excitement; and, conversing with him on the subject of religion, I took occasion to give him an account of the vision which I had had. I was greatly surprised at his behavior; he treated my communication not only lightly, but with great contempt, saying it was all of the devil, that there were no such things as visions or revelations in these days; that all such things had ceased with the apostles, and that there would never be any more of them. I soon found, however, that my telling the story had excited a great deal of prejudice against me among professors of religion, and was the cause of great persecution, which continued to increase; and though I was an obscure boy, only between fourteen and fifteen years of age, and my circumstances in life such as to make a boy of no consequence in the world, yet men of high standing would take notice sufficient to excite the public mind against me, and create a bitter persecution; and this was common among all the sects—all united to persecute me."
So remembering that Joseph Smith was persecuted (Murdered) for his religious beliefs from the moment he mentioned this vision, is it any wonder he focused more on the Book of Mormon and the organization of the Church than on his own revelation? Remember, the First Vision was a revelation whose intended audience was Joseph Smith, answering his questions. The other revelations he received, however were intended more specifically for the Church and the world. The fact he didn't walk around boasting about this sacred experience actually reveals a reverence.
In short, there's nothing to see here folks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiandy1 ( talk • contribs) 03:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
The current version is quite good: As his theology matured during the late 1830s, Smith recalled a vision of God the Father and Jesus, whom he described as two distinct, corporeal "personages." I support this version as an acceptable alternative to the text I said I was "entirely satisfied" with. "Corporeal" was a particularly good addition, imho. ...comments? ~ B F izz 01:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I fully agree, Rockford. A few days ago it read clearly and simply enough. Now it looks very "bloated." The term, "As his theology matured" is wordy and confusing. What's wrong with the word, 'later'? Or the phrase, 'later in life'. I second the concern over the term, 'recalled.' I highly doubt Joseph ever forgot such a pivotal experience. Perhaps the term 'reflected' but not 'recalled.' This reads very negative POV. Canadiandy1 ( talk) 21:07, 9 April 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy
I've taken a stab at cleaning it up and simplifying it. Canadiandy1 ( talk) 18:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy
Whether or not Smith is a reliable source, my edit simply stated that he "recorded" having seen a vision. Is there reasonable evidence to prove he is not the author of "Joseph Smith - History" as published in the Pearl of Great Price? I thought my edit was both clear and balanced. Please revert back. Canadiandy1 ( talk) 01:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy
That Joseph taught God had a tangible body does not exclude him from teaching God as also being a spirit. In LDS understanding a soul is the combination of body and spirit. Nothing to see here. Please revert. 173.180.109.246 ( talk) 15:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy
I've changed it to read thus: "Smith said he had a vision of God the Father and Jesus, whom he described as two distinct 'personages.'" It's my good-faith effort at finding a wording that everyone can live with, that doesn't try to push any particular POV, and that still has relevance to the section it illustrates. alanyst 18:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, John. Neutral non-LDS contributors have now tried to make the caption more balanced, but since it keeps getting reverted to its present confrontational biased state, I am comfortable that the fair-minded reader will see through things and actually look at both sides of the issue. And the dark foil here is actually quite a nice compliment to the courteous and dignified treatment found elsewhere. 173.180.109.246 ( talk) 00:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy
I'm not sure that the addition of a source was the solution sought. The problem was clearly identified as a biased presumption and a wordy (bloated) caption. Canadiandy1 ( talk) 00:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy
I still don't like the implied notion that Joseph Smith's theology "changed." While he may have communicated it with greater complexity in his later life, there is nothing I have seen or read which proves a changing theology. Enhanced, perhaps, but not changed. I would be comfortable with, "Smith described Jesus Christ and God the Father as two distinct physical beings." Of course, if you are looking to accept the LDS perspective, it would read more like, "Joseph Smith learned early in life that Jesus Christ and Heavenly Father had bodies of flesh and blood." Yeah, I know it would be perceived as bias, perhaps as relatively biased as the caption now reads. 173.180.109.246 ( talk) 05:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy
John. I will repeat the concern which I voiced earlier and which you still have not addressed, John. My edit did not state anything which made Joseph Smith a source. It merely stated that Joseph Smith "recorded" that he saw God and Jesus Christ. Unless there is evidence that someone else shadow-wrote the Pearl of Great Price, or unless you actually want to attribute his words completely as the words of God and not his own, there is no reason my original edit was anything but fair, neutral, and clear. I say again, please revert. 173.180.109.246 ( talk) 14:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy
You are right that it is a question, John. And until we know the answer we include what we know. We know Joseph Smith recorded that he saw God and Jesus Christ. It looks like I need to make the revert, thanks. 173.180.109.246 ( talk) 15:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy
The devil is in the details. The phrase about Smith's "later" theology seems purposely placed to imply an inconsistent theology. I do not believe all of the sources on Joseph Smith are implying Joseph did not have his reported vision. In fact his own words suggest the vision occurred at the age of 14. So to state this was only a later theology is to straight out accuse him of fabricating his original vision. Yes, John, I am sure you believe that is the case, fair. But surely you can't argue every source on Joseph Smith "knows" that he fabricated his early vision.
Fair wording would simply drop the word 'later'. The article already entertains enough pointed criticism on the subject for those who are interested in such things.
Canadiandy1 ( talk) 00:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy
Concerning the word 'corporeal.' As the caption now reads it seems to allude that this is Joseph's phraseology. Could we not use his own words if it is already neutrally identified as his own report. If not, it needs to read such that the term is clearly connected to the researchers/editors who have synthesized his words? For example,
Joseph's record of this vision identifies God and Jesus Christ as having what religious historians have termed 'corporeal' bodies.
Yeah, I know that wording sucks, but I think you get the idea. Indirect quotes are tricky things which is why I usually avoid them. Canadiandy1 ( talk) 00:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy
COgden,
I don't think I'm going to roll over on this one. Based on my understanding of the First Vision, I do not personally believe Joseph Smith's theology "evolved" or "matured." Consider the following insights from Milton V. Backman Jr.;
"On at least four different occasions, Joseph Smith either wrote or dictated to scribes accounts of his sacred experience of 1820. Possibly he penned or dictated other histories of the First Vision; if so, they have not been located. The four surviving recitals of this theophany were prepared or rendered through different scribes, at different times, from a different perspective, for different purposes and to different audiences. It is not surprising, therefore, that each of them emphasizes different aspects of his experience. When Latter-day Saints today explain this remarkable vision to others, their descriptions often vary according to the audience or circumstances that prompt such reports. If one were relating the incident to a group of high priests, for example, he would undoubtedly tell it somewhat differently than he would to individuals who had never heard of the restoration of the gospel or of Joseph Smith.
In an important way, the existence of these different accounts helps support the integrity of the Latter-day Saint Prophet. It indicates that Joseph did not deliberately create a memorized version which he related to everyone. In the legal profession, attorneys and judges recognize that if a witness repeats an incident by using precisely the same language, the court might challenge the validity of such a statement."
Nobody could ever prove that Joseph Smith understood his experience any differently as he aged. Speculate, sure. That it was reported differently is to be expected. So I call bias when individuals want to use loaded language such as "matured" or "evolved." I still see no valid argument against simply stating that "Joseph Smith recorded having seen God the Father and Jesus Christ at the age of 14. He noted that they were distinct beings with tangible bodies." 173.180.109.246 ( talk) 04:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy
COgden, you and Foxe have provided no references that "all" or even "mainline", "majority" of historians and theologians have agreed that Smith's theology changed. Being a little familiar with the topic, I will also say a reference does not exist, but I am open to being corrected. It is only your opinion that such is the case and your and Foxe's repeitition of such a statement or position does not make it real or correct. I ask both of you to drop the phrase and just use it in other media.
The LDS Church does teach that Smith received revelation his entire life and expanded on concepts first taught. However, that is not the same thing as changed. Evolved may be accurate depending upon the context of the statement and its specific topic.
The proposition that it "changed" is debatable; there is no single answer or perspective. - Storm Rider 06:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
How about simply removing the image, thereby finessing the problem of a caption?-- John Foxe ( talk) 10:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |
"Though Smith was crowned king, Jesus would periodically appear during the Millennium as the ultimate ruler. Following a thousand years of peace, Judgment Day would be followed by a final resurrection, when all humanity would be assigned to one of three heavenly kingdoms." THis says Joseph Smith will rein as King. This has no reference, I am LDS and have never heard of this in my life... I want badly to delete it, May I? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuel Clayton ( talk • contribs) 01:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
I would like to see more primary sources on this subject, quotes commonly accessible show differently. "For the Lord shall be in their midst, and he will be their king and lawgiver."- Joseph Smith, D & C 45:59 Perhaps Bushman is referring to this statement, but nowhere can I locate source stating Smith will be king: " Christ and the ressurected saints will reign over the earth during the thousand years. They will not probably dwell upon the earth, but will visit it when they please or when it is necessary to govern it."- Joseph Smith, Teachings, p. 268 I have found a number of such inconsistencies throughout the article and I cannot fix them all on my own. Please take the time to reference primary sources in addition to secondary sources ( a biography is not a primary source). I recognize the bias on both sides, but this is my religion and I believe a balance of both kinds of sources would help this article's neutrality immensely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuel Clayton ( talk • contribs) 03:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
The first paragraph has the following sentence.
Professing a God-given ability to see visions while peering at seer stones, Smith said he used this ability to translate the writing on the plates from their unknown language into English
The terms 'peering' and 'professing' seem unclear or awkward. I thought he was looking at the reflection in the translation and so 'peering at' might even be incorrect. And 'professing' might be questionable, not that Joseph was hiding the fact, but that word seems to connote an orchestrated effort to publicize his sacred gift, which I have seen no evidence of. 'Stating,' or 'acknowledging,' would be better. Also, as this information is available later in the article, it makes sense to shorten it up a bit.
As a starting point, how about,
Through the use of "seer stones," Smith claimed he used his God-given ability to translate the unknown language on the plates into English.
Seems a little more succinct.
Canadiandy1 ( talk) 03:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
I'm good with that BFizz. I like COgden's suggestion but don't like the term 'divine' as a verb. Makes me think of water divining. I know it has common usage, but semantically I think it has a more mystical allusion.
I would support your proposal;
Smith claimed that, "by the gift and power of God", he translated the unknown language on the plates into English.
Especially given that the process is broken out in detail later on even to the point of the hat, seer stones, and processes he may have followed.
Canadiandy1 ( talk) 23:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
I don't know if I should start this in a new section, but in the first paragraph it also states,
"[He] organized what he said was a restoration of the early Christian church based on this book and his interpretation of the Bible."
Has there been discussion on this one before? My understanding is that Joseph Smith did not base the restoration of the Church on these restored scriptures, but on a foundation of Priesthood authority founded in Jesus Christ (i.e. Jesus Christ being the chief cornerstone). I know this may sound picky, but as it reads now it sounds like Joseph read about Christ's Church in these "restored" scriptures and then chose to organize a Church. Which kind of misses his teaching that he acted under the direction of Christ in doing what he did. While most Church members see the restoration of these scriptures as a precursor to the restoration, it would likely be better written,
"[He] organized what he said was a restoration of the early Christian church as was found in this book and his interpretation of the Bible."
or for brevity,
"[He] organized a "restoration" of the early Christian church as was found in this book and his interpretation of the Bible." Canadiandy1 ( talk) 23:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
Thanks John. Thumbs up! Canadiandy1 ( talk) 06:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
I discussed this at Talk:List of assassinated American politicians but apparently it must be discussed here as well. Smith's death was more of a shootout than an assassination ... he was armed and fired shots during the altercation. Cheers. Duke53 | Talk 00:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
This word from the Oxford English Dictionary: "the taking the life of any one by treacherous violence, esp. by a hired emissary, or one who has taken upon him to execute the deed."-- John Foxe ( talk) 01:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Huh? First, the term assassinated is not even in this article (unless I missed it somewhere). The neutral term 'killed' is used in both instances I saw and should, I feel, be left as is. LDS would prefer the term 'martyred' or 'murdered' but I can't see any argument on either side that he wasn't 'killed.' As to the fact he shot back, I am left to ask what the point of that has to do with anything. Some critics use it to paint Joseph in a poor light.
If I was in prison wrongfully, was aware of a government or mob conspiracy to take my life, and then had a mob of 100 vigilantes (makes them sound quite cowardly to me) storm my jail cell and didn't take up arms to defend my friends and safety, I'd be called a coward. As it turns out, he seems an amazing mix of noble, astute, and prudent. Love him, or hate him, he was no coward.
Canadiandy1 ( talk) 01:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
We understand you hate him. You're belaboring your point. Reminds me of the Longfellow lyric to "I Heard the Bells on Christmas Day," that reads, "For Hate is strong/And mocks the song/of Peace on Earth, good will to men." And I'm sure it is easy for you to judge him as you have probably also endured being poisoned, beaten, tarred, unjustly imprisoned in horrible conditions for months, had six children die in infancy and been sentenced to die by firing squad. Or at least maybe you've watched some movies about such occurrences.
Canadiandy1 ( talk) 06:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
Let's all have a cup o' tea and get back to the topic at hand. For all the bluster Canadiandy does have a valid point in that "kill" seems to sum it up rather nicely. Is there any problem with leaving it "killed"? - User:Padillah signed by B Fizz since Padillah forgot
Duke53 deserves a public apology. I made a sarcastic comment which thankfully Tedder reverted. From my view Duke53 has played by the rules on this discussion and I did not. He did not deserve my immature retort. I thought I had gotten over being petty over this issue and apologize to everyone for bringing down the decorum of the discussion. I have been treated with great courtesy over the last couple months by everyone here, and I am ashamed to have to admit to having acted so poorly, especially after having been treated so fairly.
Sincerely,
Canadiandy1 ( talk) 03:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
Having just noticed there, an unregistered contributor altered the lead paragraph and changed the description of the Language of the plates from "unknown language" to "reformed Egyptian". Immediately another anonymous editor then reverted this, only for Duke53 to revert again and entrench the disputed non-consensus modification to the page.
I do believe this ought to be discussed properly to reach an agreement. Many LDS scholars dispute that "reformed egyptian" was merely an adjective used to describe an "unknown language" than an actual subject title of a language in total. To explain, it is likely to have been used to describe a somewhat altered and unique variant of Egyptian, rather than be a "language in itself". This can easily be interpreted in either way.
Thus its worth noting that sticking "reformed egyptian" in the article as a "noun" can be saw very easily as a Point of View addition. The truth being we dont actually know what this language is, it is as the article should say an "unknown language", and its unfair to try and place it down to being anything else. Routerone ( See here!) 11:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Back on topic: I prefer the "unknown language" phrasing because calling it "reformed Egyptian" without qualification in the lede suggests to the typical reader that it's a common name or label for a known language, even with careful capitalization. The former phrase is less confusing in my opinion. alanyst / talk/ 19:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Did Joseph Smith know the language he was “translating”? A person cannot effectively “translate” a language one does not know. If he did not know the language, then even Joseph Smith was confused by the mystical process, because the process would be better described as receiving a dictation of something translated by a mysterious entity. My proposal:
During the late 1820s he became the leader of a small group of followers who believed that an angel had given him a book of golden plates written in a lost language described as “reformed Egyptian” and containing a religious history of ancient American peoples. Smith said that via supernatural means he had “translated” the writing on the plates into Biblical King James styled English. In 1830, he published the translation as the Book of Mormon and organized what he said was a restoration of the early Christian church.
I predict a fight over placing quotation marks around “translated”. If the quotation marks are removed, then editors would be with reason to add excessive verbiage explaining the oddities of the claim to translation. With the quotation marks the careful reader might realize there is more to look into if desired without distracting for the main summary that the paragraph is. Mormography ( talk) 15:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Mormography. "...yet you felt it necessary..." ", interesting" "hasty jump". I'm sensing sarcasm. I don't agree with COgden on many points, but if you are implying he is pushing some pro-Joseph agenda, I think you are greatly mistaken. I'm not sticking up for him, but I will stick up for unfair treatment here. No hard feelings, I made the same newcomer mistakes (and still do) earlier on. 173.180.120.36 ( talk) 04:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
The article reads that;
"Smith's followers revere him and regard his revelations as scripture, while he has sometimes been demonized by critics."
I know it's picky, but the grammar sounds wrong or disjointed to me. It just sounds awkward. Not sure, but maybe the word 'while' is in the wrong place.
Could it not simply read,
"Smith has been revered by his followers and demonized by several (many?) critics"
or
"While Smith's followers revered him as an inspired revelator, he was demonized by many critics."
I'm not arguing a POV here, simply grammar.
204.174.31.155 ( talk) 03:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
Another minor edit. Should this be in a new section? The article reads,
"Smith's death led to schisms in the Latter Day Saint movement."
Isn't the 'Latter Day Saint Movement" a result of the schism?
Should it not simply read,
"Smith's death led to a religious schism in the Church."
(Note, I have purposefully used the term 'the Church' because, while it will be understood by the LDS as referencing The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, at the same time it does not exclude the beliefs that others of the "Latter-Day Saint movement" have that the LDS faith broke from them.) Specific yet neutral. Short yet informative. Sassy but not too pretentious. Bold but not overbearing. Like a fine non-alcoholic wine.
Canadiandy1 ( talk) 04:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
Thanks, John, COgden, and BFizz, for your input, attention and improvements here.
173.180.103.98 ( talk) 04:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
This section seems extremely short and vague to have it be included. I know latter-day saints have much stricter of a moral code than this. On February 9, 1831 Smith dictated a very long and detailed revelation now known as "the law". This was a very basic summary of the ten commandments. He also installed the law of consecration a form of communalism, because it was considered unethical for one person to hold more property than another thus "the whole world lies in sin." He also believed science and religion agreed with one another. In this respect, certain aspects of the religion are similar to Baha'i Faith, and some Baha'ists regard him as a seer (but not a prophet). This because they believe one of his revelations foresees the occurrence of Bahá'u'lláh's proclamation as a Manifestation of God. Just type "Baha'i LDS" into google to find out. As for this:
"For instance, the Book of Mormon approved the killing of a man and appropriation of his property because the killer had been moved by the Holy Spirit. Smith believed he might occasionally violate laws and ethical norms in order to serve what he perceived as a higher religious purpose."
If this is referring to Nephi killing Laban, the assessment is simply inaccurate, because Nephi had the right to do so according to the law of moses; Laban had sought to kill him and his brothers previously. Usually if the Holy Ghost prompts someone under these circumstances, it is generally due to lack of knowledge. For someone not lds this can be viewed as rather peculiar.-- Samuel Clayton ( talk) 04:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I think I agree with you, Samuel Clayton. While the points made in the section may be valid, they are not, I feel, unique or important enough to warrant special treatment.
For example,
"Smith believed he might occasionally violate laws and ethical norms in order to serve what he perceived as a higher religious purpose."
Not a very unique statement. Wouldn't most people accept this ethic, that is that the direct will of God trumps a man-made law. Isn't that what Daniel got thrown in the lion's den over? And would anyone be surprised to learn that a man who claimed personal revelation from God would also place God's will higher than all others? Wouldn't that be a given? I think the only unique event of note was when it worked out the other way, when God forbade Joseph to show the manuscript of the some of the plate translations, and he then persisted to request permission to share them. And even then, he only did so after receiving permission (albeit qualified with a serious caution).
If we're looking for a chance to shorten this up, here's a good place to start. Drop the section but relocate the information on the Word of Wisdom and the Law of Consecration somewhere else.
173.180.103.183 ( talk) 08:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
I like some of the changes. I made a small edit; I removed the word 'yet' as it seemed to make it read more as a gotcha statement, though doubtless undesigned.
Canadiandy1 (
talk)
04:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
There is one aspect of this article that needs remodeling in my opinion. It is said in the section of theology of the family that Smith taught that plural marriage was the ultimate manifestation of the New and Everlasting Covenant. I have referenced the given source, and found it to be a clear stretch of what Smith said. Smith had only stated that those practicing polygamy were doing so under the direction of his revelations, and that they were blameless and would be exalted. If you wish to have that in the article, please do so. However, the problem with the current vision is that it says too much!
Every single source imaginable at least concurs that polygamy was not a part of the majority of Smith's followers. Logic concurs. If Smith taught this, what of all of his followers that were not practicing polygamy at the present time? Joseph Smith taught that for a man or woman to be exalted, they must be sealed by one having the authority for time and all eternity. He never said that a monogamous relationship was insufficient. I want a reference where he did.
The chiefest among those who refuse to let any revision stand that would correct this error has mormon garments on his page in the grossest disrespect. What a coincidence from an author trying to capture his version of "history". I want to capture the pure history of this man, monumental achievments and faults.
My suggested revision is the removal of plural before marriage, so that it says joseph smith taught that marriage was the ultimate manifestation of the new and everlasting covenant. Also, everything else suggesting he ever taught that plural marriage was the only way to salvation, which sorry to say, is half the paragraph which is exactly why it is erroneous.
If you wish to retain the page how it is, at least show me a reference other than the one falsely sited where Joseph Smith taught that a monogynous relationship would be insufficient for exaltation. That will require something more than pretending to be a scholar: actual scholarship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.213.53.41 ( talk) 02:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Good point, unsigned. We bantered this one earlier and came to a compromised outcome, but I think the work is unfinished. While I'm not convinced, I will allow that Joseph may have taught a 'fuller' exaltation through plural marriage. What is missing in the text though is the teaching of Smith that through monogamous Celestial Marriage an individual could also be exalted in the highest degree of the Celestial kingdom, an unlimited exaltation. So you are right to argue that in its present state the article is misleading. How would you recommend we add this key missing fact? Any help here COgden? Welcome, unsigned, and please stay to help. You have good insight.
Canadiandy1 ( talk) 18:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
I'm not seeing much input here, how about,
"Joseph Smith taught that full exaltation could be achieved only by women and men who were married within “the new and everlasting covenant.” (Doctrine and Covenants 132:19). He taught that a higher level of exaltation might be achieved through "plural marriage",[335] which was the ultimate manifestation of this New and Everlasting Covenant.[339]..."
Please note as a minor edit (in addition to the first sentence) I removed the parenthetical word 'Polygamy.' It originally followed the phrase 'plural marriage' which makes it quite redundant.
173.180.103.183 ( talk) 00:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
Current reference number 335 is attached to the following points:
Reference 355 is Foster (1981, p. 145). Foster 1981 refers to "Religion and Sexuality: The Shakers, the Mormons, and the Oneida Community", written by Lawrence Foster, published in 1981 by Oxford Press.
This url is provided for the Google Book preview of page 135 of the book. From there you can easily navegate to page 145 of the book. I read the page. It supports the first point clearly. However, the second two points are not clearly supported.
From my observation,
In conclusion, I feel that this source supports anon's suggestion to change "plural marriage" to "celestial marriage" for the indicated sentences. However, I'd like some more discussion before I try editing the section, since a little re-arranging will also be necessary to preserve the logical flow of the prose. ...comments? ~ B F izz 05:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I am the original unsigned instigator of the last edit regarding plural marriage. This is much better, and true. Perfectly done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Creightonian ( talk • contribs) 05:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
One last tweak? The section opens with the phrase, "Smith gradually unfolded...". Could we drop the word 'gradually'? I don't deny it took place over a number of years, but I think 'unfolded' suffices.
173.180.103.183 ( talk) 19:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
I think there are specific issues with this article which must be addressed. Some of the more controversial topics on Smith such as slavery or polygamy are well addressed, however they are all sourced on the same biography written by a member of the church. In fact, about 1/3 of the references in this article come from the biography: Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling by Richard Bushman. Richard Bushman has written many publications for the church. Can we find a more neutral reference for these topics please?
MichJEss ( talk) 11:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
You know, I actually agree with MichJEss that Bushman is not a good source, but likely for a completely different reason. I don't question his work or methodology, just his cynical approach. It seems that his aim is actually to focus on Joseph Smith's shortcomings not his strengths (or at least it seems that the information most referenced here is that which is juicy or inflammatory). So in the end you have two key sources, a bitter anti-Mormon and the only key academic Mormon researcher with a cynical focus.
So if you're questioning bias in the article, I agree fully with you. It's systemically way too anti-Mormon, though I do sense an increase in the dignity shown lately by contributors, who are showing great general sensitivity to the LDS community.
173.180.103.183 ( talk) 05:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
I don't like that reality, John, but I think you're bang on this time.
173.180.103.183 ( talk) 06:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
MichJEss, here's a space to describe what you believe is both cited to Bushman and is POV.-- John Foxe ( talk) 03:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
I reverted your good-faith edit because I thought the extra wording was helpful in establishing context especially to those unfamiliar with Mormonism. But I'd be happy to discuss it on the talk page if you challenge my reasoning. Best wishes, alanyst / talk/ 23:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I found this section incomplete.
Death is an important event in anyone’s life and maybe more so in Joseph Smiths case. To say “Five men were tried for his murder; all were acquitted.” is incomplete. Furthermore, it implies that they were innocent. This is not supported by the historical record. The results of that trial may have influenced other trials. A very brief summary is lacking. For example in the Wikipedia section for Nicole Brown Simpson, the trial of O.J. Simpson is summarized in this fashion: “O. J. Simpson was arrested and found not guilty of murdering both her and Goldman in a controversial criminal trial. He was later found liable for the deaths in a civil suit brought by the families of the two victims.” Something similar could be written about the five men arrested and acquitted in the Joseph Smith murder.-- Mdduffinmd ( talk) 02:17, 31 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdduffinmd ( talk • contribs) 01:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Saying "who founded the Latter-day Saint movement, a group of Churches" is misleading about Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith founded a Church, and it was always presented as The Church of Jesus Christ, with the notion that there could only be one true Church. It is true that there are multiple Churches today that claim Joseph Smith as their founder, and that acknowledging this fact is needed, still it seems the wording is inaccurate. What Joseph founded was not a group of Churches, he founded One Church which has multiple claimants for being its modern successor. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 23:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I am open to other wording uses than what I chose but we need to keep central that Joseph Smith founded a Church, not a movement. It was from the beginning clear that it had centralized authority, and the formation of later Churches is by clear breaks or by disputes on who actually holds the authority. I think the current wording strikes a compromise between the claims of Joseph as founder by multiple organizations and the fact that few if any of those organizations see Joseph as founding anything other than an organized and centralized Church. The formation was a Church, with a clear designation of Joseph as First Elder and Oliver Cowdery as second elder on the day it was organized. Although other parts of organization are later, the fact that designated titles come from the start shows this is the organization of a Church, something we have to emphasize in the article. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 23:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
John are you proposing that all major edits to the article be presented here on the discussion page until consensus is reached before editing the page? If that is what you are really proposing, then I would be more than happy to second that motion. However, all editors will need to abide by that same rule and not just those who make edits that are personally problematical for you. That sounds harsh, but you have a history of making wholescale edits without achieving any degree of consensus and then demanding that consensus be reached to change your edits. Just play fair and play by the exact rules that you like everyone else to abide. - Storm Rider 16:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Even if technically more accurate, I think the present edit is awkward and redundant prose. I'm trying to make an improvement that is sensitive to the above concerns. COGDEN 17:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
It seems to me that if we are going to bring up the Angel Moroni in the opening, we should bring up the First Vision. Yet that will just increase the length even more. I am trying to think of a way to do it quickly, moving most coverage lower. On the other hand part of me thinks a line like "Smith said he recieved visits and instruction from Jesus Christ and various angels and translated an set of ancient scriptures during the 1820s. In 1830 he published this translation as the Book of Mormon and organized the Church of Christ" would be better. The First Vision, the multiple visits from Moroni, the visits from John the Baptist and Peter, James and John to restore the priesthood are all hinted at in here, but the specific details are left for later. Some might object to te way the translating is discussed, but this is all prefaced with "Smith said" so really saying he said something again seems an unneccessary mitigation of his own words. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 05:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
We might try words other than "founder" to describe Smith's relation to the "movement", such as "origin" or "heart", though these are both awkward examples. "Prophet" has been tried and is inevitably problematic with some editors, who see it as an assertion of supernatural power rather than simply an assertion of cultural esteem. "Creator", "inventor", "instigator", "initiator"; these are also awkward or convey a strange POV. Just trying to brainstorm here, but "founder" is the best we've got, imho. ...comments? ~ B F izz 01:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
The problem with the phrase "his revelations are considered scripture" is that it is imprecise. Is every word that Smith uttered considered "revelation"? What about every word that he wrote? I think we need to be precise as to what his "revelations" are. I think we are specifically talking about the three books in the Standard Works (Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price). The article on the Standard Works mentions that these three books are the Standard Works of the LDS Church. Presumably, the rest of Mormonism (e.g. the Fundamentalist Mormons) also considers them to be Standard Works and I assume that they use that phrase. What about the rest of the Latter Day Saint movement? Do they also consider all three books to be "Standard Works"? What term do they use?
The article on the Standard Works mentions that the Standard Works are part of the open scriptural canon of the LDS Church. If you walked up to a member of the LDS Church and referred to the Doctrine and Covenants as "scripture", would they correct you and say that the Bible and the Book of Mormon are scripture but the Doctrine and Covenants are revelation that are part of the Standard Works? I just want to understand how Mormons use the word "scripture".
-- Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 16:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
During the last GA review, the non-biographical sections were rather new. Now that they have had time to mature, I think the article is ready to pass a GA review this time. Unless anyone feels that there are serious issues with good article criteria that need to be addressed, I will again nominate the article for Good Article status. ...comments? ~ B F izz 01:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
While this clearly belongs in the article, it seems not neccessary to mention Joseph's political position in the opening sentance. There are a lot of issues here, including that Joseph Smith did not become involved in politics in a direct way until after the Missouri expulsion. He never held a political office until then, and this could well have related to a feeling of betrayal by Col. Hinckle and a view that the best way to have good political leaders is to be one yourself. However another key is that Latter-day Saints did not see a clear line between political and religious, Jesus will reign literally as king, and especially once the government goes against you there is a feeling of a need for good government. This all seems to much for a the lead. On the other hand, maybe mentioning that Joseph Smith was mayor of Nauvoo, Illinois at the time of his death would work in the intro. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 05:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I reverted specifically because the phrase "in the 1820s" got moved from the beginning of a sentence to the end. (Generally, time references should come first in a sentence.) It's important to keep the biographical events in chronological order.-- John Foxe ( talk) 12:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected}} All references to the church on this page are incorrect. They are all "Latter Day Saints," which is incorrect. The official title is Latter-day Saints. And the church's official name is "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." "Latter" is hyphenated with a lowercase "day." This is a non-debatable issue. You either have someone's name correct or wrong, no in-between.
B0cean ( talk) 21:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
The lead to an article should inform people about the topic it discusses, in this case Joseph Smith. Saying he is "controversial" does not inform people. Say what he did, not what people think of him in the lead. There is no religion founder who is not controversial. There are multiple religions that posit that their teachings are correct and all other religions are false, thus Mohammad, Buddha, Jesus, Moses, Confucius and other religion founders will all be seen as setting up false systems by some people. The same could be said for Mary Baker Eddy and most modern religion founders, saying they are controversial says nothing. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 05:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
All of the Mormons I have ever known or met (including some Mormon missionaries) calle him "Joseph Smith"; no one calls him "Joseph Smith, Jr." This really should be in the introduction. Shocking Blue ( talk) 17:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Interesting suggestion. However, since his Father was a person of influence within the early church (First Church Patriarch), and since there were two other Joseph Smiths (Joseph Fielding Smith and Joseph F. Smith) who served as Church Presidents it might be important to identify him this way initially in the article.
173.180.103.183 ( talk) 06:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Amadscientist ( talk) 13:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
This artcle is long and detailed and will require a substantial amount of time. Editors please be patient. If it is determined that a hold is appropriate, it will begin once this reviewer has completed work.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 13:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
In order to pass a GA nomination the article must meet the following standards:
Reviewer notes:
Images must comply with Manual of Style guidlines Wikipedia:Images and Wikipedia:Image use policy: Each image has a corresponding description page. On that page, one should document the source, author and copyright status of the image, using one of the pre-defined image copyright tags. It is important to add both descriptive (who, what, when, where, why) and technical (equipment, software, etc.) information at the time of creating the page, which will be useful and highly informative to later editors and readers.
Whenever you upload an image, you should meet the following minimal requirements.
While many of the images are Public domain, their use on wikipedia in a GA article must have the proper information for consideration.
The following images have issues that need to be addressed to meet GA criteria:
*Joseph_Smith_first_vision_stained_glass.jpg = This image is owned by the Public Broadcasting sytem and it still retains the rights to this image. As stated in the terms of service: The Information available on PBS ONLINE® may include intellectual property that is protected under the copyright, trademark and other intellectual property laws of the United States and/or other countries ("Intellectual Property Laws"). Such Intellectual Property Laws generally prohibit the unauthorized reproduction, distribution or exhibition of all text, photographic and graphic (art and electronic) images, music, sound samplings and other protected materials. The violation of applicable Intellectual Property Laws may give rise to civil and/or criminal penalties.
While some two dimensional images are faithful reproductions Wikimedia commons states: When a photograph demonstrates originality (typically, through the choice of framing, lighting, point of view and so on), it qualifies for copyright even if the photographed subject is itself uncopyrighted. This is typically the case for photographs of three-dimensional objects, hence the rule of thumb that "2D is OK, 3D is not". The work presented in the image is NOT a mere 2 dimensional work. Stained glass requires "choice of framing, lighting, and point of view" as using a simple flash at anytime of day or night would NOT produce the image you see as well as the fact that the work is meant to be viewed from multiple angles in the same way as a sculpture, which by definition stained glass is.
In short, the license is incorrect and the original source STILL claims copyright. This image cannot be used for GA (or Wiki at all for that matter).
. Although many materials such as stained glass and fabric possess some three-dimensional texture, at ordinary viewing distances this texture is essentially invisible. As long as the surface is not noticeably curved or tattered/broken, and the original work is old enough to have entered the public domain, it is considered a faithful reproduction of the original with no original contribution.--
Amadscientist (
talk)
06:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I'll take a look at addressing the image copyright issues. If anyone else gets to it before me, then all the better. ...comments? ~ B F izz 20:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
I emailed the Church History Museum, asking a few questions about the image. I might just take a trip to Salt Lake and photograph it myself. I've found various versions of this image online, but none under a permissible license:
I also found a similar work of art that we might consider photographing and uploading, if the original work is not copyrighted.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/7156208@N02/412617797/in/photostream/
...comments? ~ B F izz 22:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
BFizz, I believe I have a handle on the infobox painting. I found the original source and author of the first image before upload. If all that was done was photoshop work to improve the image, than the information can be used.--
Amadscientist (
talk) 01:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
It's not the same image. I will continue to research this one out. It would be a shame to lose it. Nice image.--
Amadscientist (
talk)
01:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
The infobox image is easily replaced but I do intend to see if I can find the nicer version even after the review is closed. It's just a really nice image and if we can't find the original source we will have to replace with the original upload as that is from the Church archives online while the other one is not. I have found two sites that use this image but they are both message boards that mat well have taken the image from wiki. The others can simply be deleted from the article if they cannot be fixed with no loss of quality to the article itself, but work is underway to correct them by another editor.
Work this out guys. Seriously. The article just came off protection and when I began the review it seemed to be holding stable. It has lost that stability which endangers the review. One criteria for "Quick Fail" is stablity. At this point I am NOT giving up with a quick fail but if this can't be smoothed out, GA standards that might be worked out may simply be lost within hours or days if it passes GA nomination.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 02:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry. but that is simply incorrect. If the article is experiancing so many reverts that it is protected...it is unstable. The protection has been lifted and the constant reverts return. The review guidlines state "Edit warring, etc", so even though there are no real edit wars among the contributing editors, it is far from stable. I am talking about a single day. March 5th, were there was section blanking, vandalism, and simple disagreements on content and accuracy. The article is not stable. I am NOT quick failing over the issue for one reason...it wasn't so when I began. However, I am failing the stability portion of the review.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 08:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
The lede has one major problem.....it has little to do with Smith himself and skips a lot of the article to speak almost exclusively about the church. This need to be a tight summary of the overall article. which leads me to the next major problem...
Can you give us specifics on what major portions of Smith's life the lede is skipping? Or portions of the lede that are excessive detail and can be removed? ...comments? ~ B F izz 02:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
A quick look at the article shows that there are really two subjects being discussed. The man and his church. While the church IS a part of the man's life, and a major part, the artcile needs focus. What is the article about. The man or his church or both. If both, then perhaps, simply renaming the article would be appropriate.
He organized the church when he was 24, and died at 44, so nearly his entire adult life was deeply intertwined with the church. The article is about Smith, but it's virtually impossible to say anything about his adult life without talking about his church as well. The Church of Christ (Latter Day Saints) and History of the Latter Day Saint movement are the main articles about his church. If you have any suggestions of information that we can leave out of this article and treat exclusively in those articles, please do tell. ...comments? ~ B F izz 02:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
The article lacks focus and is far too broad in scope. Seperating the man from the church is not impossible and simply using information from other wikipedia articles as the basis for this article, while appropriate, is not enough. There is a great deal of information available and can be referenced and cited. http://www.google.com/search?q=Joseph+Smith+Jr.+the+man&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1 -- Amadscientist ( talk) 03:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
There are some reference, note, source and citation problems. This will take some time to go through. Bare with me please as I write up specifics. Thanks.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 05:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
This is what I find in just the first 5 notes:
The following note seems to be somewhat promotional and has no context to either the USA today reference or the unsubstantiated claim in notes. Community of Christ (2009), General Denominational Information, http://www.cofchrist.org/news/GeneralInfo.asp#membership, retrieved December 17, 2009 (second largest Latter Day Saint movement denomination claiming approximately 250,000 members). This is only one denomination. This simply does not relate to either claims.
Substantiate the LDS figure and lose the Community of Christ note.
The claim must reflect the reference. It should say “The family knew poverty, but by the time of Joseph junior’s birth their circumstances had improved.” The reference needs to give the specific page which is 19.
The reference from Bushman is on page 21. We do not need the rest. JUST page 21. Either fix the reference OR expand the claim to reflect the information found in the other pages.
In reading the actual references against the prose I see clear OR and bias attempting to make the life sound worse than it really was.
Note 6 = I see no mention of the term "Second Great Awakening" in this reference. The use of the Peacock term "Hotbed" is unencyclopedic. The reference merely mentions "revivals" of such great regularity that the district became known as the "Burnt district". Yes, it is speaking of this period but did not do so outright. To use this as the reference to that statement is stretching. You would need the reference and source to say this in one way or another and it really doesnt.
References have a few problems as well:
Notes have some big problems with bias and OR. They do not seem to be completely following the source and in some instances are showing they simply do not support claims at all. This is a serious problem for a Wikipedia article, let alone for GA. Formating is just not to standard with overlinking, dead links and unreferenced claims. Not every note has such problems but clearly need a good deal of attention by a disinterested editor to go through line by line and make much needed editing.
References on the other hand are not as bad but contain similar problems that must be corrected. I really think the overlinking is really bad. It confuses the reader and makes navigating the sources very difficult. If you have wikilinked the notes and the references as a means of guiding the reader to specifc articles it doesn't help with a list this long right next to external links to to e-books, many of which do not go to the specific page were the reference would be found. If the external link does not go directly to the reference, why bother? It's not a conveniance.
I've deleted these tables from the main article and moved them here for discussion:
Leaders of the
Church of Christ, later called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints | |
---|---|
Founding president | Leader Claiming Succession Position in the Church of Christ Title & denomination Years |
Joseph Smith, Jr. (1830–1844) | |
Brigham Young was President of the Quorum of the Twelve President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 1844–1877 | |
Joseph Smith III was Direct Descendant of Joseph Smith, Jr.
President of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints later called the
Community of Christ | |
James Strang was an Elder with a Letter of appointment President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Strangite) 1844–1856 | |
Sidney Rigdon was senior surviving member of the First Presidency Guardian of the Church of Christ later called the Church of Jesus Christ of the Children of Zion or Rigdonites 1844–1847 |
Personally, I don't think they add anything to the article. The succession information is better written as prose, and can be found in the "Succession Crisis" article. Also, there is no consistent series of boxes used by Nauvoo mayors, most of whom don't have Wikipedia pages. COGDEN 08:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
OK, "Hotbed" is repeated now in the lede. I don't remember seeing it there before. Its a Peacock term. I am also seeing a repeated usage of terms and descriptions that make the article less reliable to the source. For the most part the writing is not bad. But the lede now contains the same phrase found in the "Early years" section. I had mentioned this only in the reference and note section as it pertained to the misuse of the reference...but now it needs to be addressed on it's own.
Another problem with the prose that I'll mention here intead of the reference and notes review section is the over abundence of notes breaking up the sentences throughout the article. It makes it very difficult to read. It is particularly bad from the sections, "Life in Ohio (1831–38))" up to the section "Death".
Example:
Mob attacks began in July 1833,[116] but Smith advised the Mormons to patiently bear them[117] until a fourth attack, which would permit vengeance to be taken.[118] This just does not seem necessary.
I have a few thoughts regarding this section. I referred to Rough Stone Rolling pages 51-53 (through the Google books preview). Bushman states that "Work on the Stowell and Knight farms was not the only magnet drawing Joseph Smith back. While at home, he told his mother about Miss Emma Hale..." Bushman correlates his farm work to meeting and seeing Emma, while we state that he met her "during one of these treasure quests". The way our article currently phrases it, it makes it sound like Smith's work during this period consisted exclusively of treasure hunting. From what I understand, the treasure hunting was more of a side-venture compared to his farm work during those years. Also, it would probably be good to at least mention the Stowells by name. Our article seems to suggest that Smith performed treasure hunting for various employers, while Bushman seems to suggest he was almost always working with/for the Stowells. I can't really find anywhere that Bushman says he was paid directly for his treasure seeking, rather than, for example, getting a cut of the findings. The only suggestion that he was compensated is when Bushman states that "In 1825, when the family needed money, Joseph Jr. agreed to help Stowell find the spanish gold..."
On a different note, Bushman says that when Joseph asked for Emma's hand in marriage, her father Isaac Hale objected because Joseph was "a stranger, and followed a business that I could not approve", apparently referring to his treasure hunting. It might be good to mention this as Emma's parents' reason for "disapproving the match".
tl;dr - this section needs a few modifications in order to fit with the sources cited. ...comments? ~ B F izz 22:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Bushman page 47 says "In October, 1825, Joseph and his father took jobs digging in Pennsylvania for Josiah Stowell Sr." - thus placing Joseph in the manual labor position in a "treasure hunt." Then page 48 says "[in 1826] Josiah Stowell Sr. employed him to do farm chores and perhaps work in the mills...Joseph's experience in clearing the Smith farm made him a useful hand..." On page 48, Bushman also explains that the Smiths were to receive 2/11 of the gold/ore discovered, making no other mention of repayment. Bushman narrates that JSJr convinced Stowell to stop digging; it seems doubtful that the Smiths were profiting from this particular failed excursion. ...comments? ~ B F izz 08:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
In the Bushman text I've read about Smith being employed by two men for treasure seeking
Foxe insists that Smith performed treasure-seeking, hired by various employers. Can someone please quote some authoritative sources to back that up? ...comments? ~ B F izz 01:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I find this edit of John Foxe's to be argumentative and a misrepresentation of the sources; see Bushman pp. 47-53. Since he and I seem to be at an impasse, and I don't want to cross the line into edit warring, will other editors besides us please opine whether the edit is appropriate or not? Thanks, alanyst / talk/ 22:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Ouch, Stormrider. I agree it is poor form to cite Howe. But to accuse someone of work parallel to that of Ed Decker seems a little harsh. Brodie perhaps, but Decker? My favorite trivia about Decker is that "one of his associates offered to exorcise the Tanners' demons, and expressed great sadness when they refused" because of the Tanners' accusation that his writings weren't as subtle as theirs in leading LDS members from their religion. Such fun watching the dogs barking at the caravan turn on each other.
173.180.123.61 ( talk) 02:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy
Can someone explain to me the merits of COgden's position. I believe he is suggesting that even though the author of a history is clearly biased and therefore unreliable, his writing is relevant because it contains some accurate sources. My position would be to throw out the author's work. If there is an accurate reference or item in the writing source it independently. Otherwise the item itself can be seen as less reliable by association. It may take a little more work, but if the jobs worth doing, isn't it worth doing right? 173.180.123.61 ( talk) 21:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy
Good point, Stormrider.
173.180.123.61 ( talk) 15:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy
The article reads;
[Emma's]strong opposition to plural marriage "made her doubly troublesome."[426]
Was this a direct quote from a church member? The reference only links to Bushman. Is this Bushman's own interpretation or if he is quoting another individual? Can we have the original source please? As it reads now it seems to connect this quote to the Church leadership, where in reality it may actually be Emma's personal narrative.
Even with the source, the way this is presented is biased in at least two ways. It either suggests that the Church was disrespectful of Emma as an individual, or to the other extreme that Emma's opposition of polygamy was wrong. And I don't buy the argument that since it is biased in both extremes it is somehow balanced.
What's wrong with stating that Emma felt the leadership of the Church were disappointed/frustrated with her position. If this is actually the case according to a reliable source.
Canadiandy1 ( talk) 22:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy
Because where it sits it is confusing as to whether it is the words of Brigham Young, Emma Smith, some early church leader or the historian Bushman. Canadiandy1 ( talk) 05:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy
Thanks for the history. I agree about not parroting Bushman, the article is not about him. I also wonder what evidence Bushman might have had that church leaders' opinions of Emma personally were negative. Without supporting evidence, better terminology would look like;
'Emma's actions caused them concern,' or, 'the leaders were frustrated by her actions.'
(responding to this edit summary) Duke, out any of my comments above, can you please tell me where I have given "personal reasons"? I'm pretty sure I gave editorial reasons for this. What you call "my interpretation" is a very obvious derivation of Bushman's words. Please stop wikilawyering under the false mantra of protecting sourced quotations. There's no policy that says we should prefer direct quotes over clearer wording. ...comments? ~ B F izz 17:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
The way it reads now (Her strong opposition to plural marriage further complicated her relationship with the church) is much, much better. Thanks, all. The facts remain in the text but are now written in a more neutral and clear manner.
173.180.123.61 ( talk) 18:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy
ASniper, I will give you that Emma's positions/rejections created problems for the leadership. But the term 'troublesome' is loaded and I disagree that Emma was 'troublesome.' Her actions created troubles for leadership, perhaps. But labeling Emma in such a way is like calling one's child 'bad.' The social standard recommends labeling the action and not the child.
173.180.123.61 ( talk) 18:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy
![]() | Historical note inserted in retrospect: this discussion relates to article versions near
418527466 regarding the caption accompanying a portrait of
Emma Hale Smith, located in the Legacy > Family and Descendants section. The caption reads:
|
I feel that the information contained in the caption of Emma Hale Smith does not belong there. I'm not suggesting that we remove the text entirely, just that we move it into that section. As it stands, the image does not follow consistency with the rest of the article's images. What does everyone else think? Thanks, w7jkt talk 19:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I have no doubt that you view that statement important. I contend, however, that "first wife" does not suggest that Emma died, it suggests more than one wife. It's blatantly obvious when taken in context. But it still remains that if the caption remains a statement contained within the section, then the other captions must be changed as well for consistency. Thanks, w7jkt talk 19:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm with you, W7jkt. It seems in poor taste that the summation of Emma Smith's legacy is her stand on Polygamy. This is the lady who was the mother of all of Joseph's children (despite conflicting records no DNA evidence has ever proven otherwise). She stood by him through all of his persecutions, lost multiple children in childbirth, adopted and raised others with Joseph, endured Joseph's murder, stayed behind when the Saints left for the West; and all we see when scanning the article is about her position on polygamy. I'm sorry I wasn't involved in any previous discussion. No offense to those who debated this one previously but I agree with W7jkt that the caption read simply;
"Emma Hale Smith, first wife of Joseph Smith."
Even more dignified for the descendants of Joseph would be,
"Emma Hale Smith, wife of Joseph Smith."
But I'm sure we'd never get away with that one.
173.180.123.61 ( talk) 17:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy
If the image were to be found in a section on 'plural marriage' it might be seen as potentially appropriate. However the section is on 'Family and Descendants'. It is not reliably proven that Joseph had any children outside his marriage to Emma. So it simply looks like muckraking to highlight Emma's position on polygamy so prevalently while downplaying the amazingly challenging and compassionate work she performed in raising her several children through such challenging circumstances. You can argue this is a LDS sentiment, but I don't believe respect for the dignity of the role of mothers is exclusive to Mormonism. And as long as mindless academia trumps dignity, we're going to keep having problems with this article.
Canadiandy1 ( talk) 21:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy
Whoa. I have reviewed the past discussion on the subject. Nowhere in that discussion was W7jkt's point "...the information contained in the caption of the Emma Hale Smith does not belong there. I'm not suggesting that we remove the text entirely, just that we move it into that section. As it stands, the image does not follow."
raised significantly. His point is not about the text itself, but its location in the caption box. This is a new point which deserves to be discussed. What's the rush?
Canadiandy1 ( talk) 02:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy
BFizz, I greatly appreciate the improvements you have been able to make here thanks to your time and contributions. My concern is not that the wording is not a huge improvement, but whether it belongs there at all. The same information should be held within the text, so that Emma's entire life is not summed up according to her position on polygamy. What would be so horrible if the caption read something like;
"Married to Joseph in January 1827, Emma was the mother of seven natural and two adopted children."
The information on her position on polygamy could then be placed in the section's second paragraph where it seems to fit naturally.
This woman, love her or hate her, raised 9 children through incredibly trying circumstances. How is this trumped by her position on polygamy and the dispute that she did or didn't know Joseph was "married" again in a literal or dynastic way. Replacing a clear family reality with a speculative, debated, and critical item makes no sense.
I have no more to say on the wording, but I want to voice my opinion that the debate on the location of the caption's text is far from closed.
173.180.123.61 ( talk) 18:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy
John Foxe,
I'm going to drop this one. It seems that there is too much appetite for branding Emma as a liar. Maybe we can deal with it later when things have cooled down a little. But I will repeat that it is not 'that' it is stated, but 'where' it is stated. And does it really matter whether the article calls her a liar first and then informs us she had several children, or instead refers to her as a mother and then calls her a liar? Either way your opinion is validated.
173.180.123.61 ( talk) 20:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy
Yes, most women have children. And all people die. Just because it is common (and was inevitable) does that mean we stop putting up headstones? Judging from what I read on headstones we usually honor deceased individuals by recognizing their family connections as their primary accomplishment, regardless of what they are popular for.
173.180.123.61 ( talk) 20:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy
[discussion regarding adultery moved to new section]
I believe it was COgden who made a change I never saw discussed in which the article now refers to the church Joseph Smith founded as a 'primitivist' church. While Joseph Smith did identify the church as a reflection of the 'primitive Christian church' his word usage in context referred to the original church organized by Christ and did not mean any discredit (why would he discredit the church he was patterning [his] work after?). The term 'primitivist' in our modern context however seems to reflect backwards thinking or even old-fashioned. Clearly, the term 'restorationist' is more reflective of his aim, more clear, and more courteous to those of the Latter Day Saint movements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiandy1 ( talk • contribs) 07:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Perfect, BFizz! COgden. I see your point in phrasing, and I don't like the idea of dumbing down the article, but I think it is important to point out that most readers of the article will not be familiar with the phraseology often used here. While the term 'primitivist' may be accurate, my vote is for terminology more common to the majority of readers.
173.180.123.61 ( talk) 07:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy
The point isn't whether Mormons understand the term, but whether common readers do. Why use the term 'pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis' when 'lung disease' will do?
173.180.123.61 ( talk) 01:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy
I disagree, COgden. The best solution is what BFizz suggests;
"He organized a church named the Church of Christ, calling it a restoration of the church established by Jesus Christ."
What problem do you have with his wording?
173.180.123.61 ( talk) 02:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy
Are we wording this just so we can advertise for the "Disciples of Christ" page? Let's call this what it is, and not what it is like. I understand if there is a link from Christian primitivism back to this article if this fits that definition, but I don't see the need to try and jam this peg into a hole on another pegboard. The peg might even fit, but what's the need? Let's stop defining other people's religions by what we think they are or aren't like. You say, "...it's important to categorize early Mormonism as a form of Christian primitivism." I think it's important to stop categorizing religions, and to start respecting them for their individual beliefs and values.
But if it's simply about being wordy or increasing the mere number of links to other pages, then I have no further improvements to suggest.
173.180.123.61 ( talk) 19:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy
[originally a continuation of the "Emma Hale Smith caption" talk section above.]
Mr. Foxe, I am finding quite a few sources concerning Smith's adultery and fornication; when I get them sorted I feel that this should be mentioned by name in this article. ...comments ?
An example:
I would only be replacing a term with a statement that says the same thing but in a way that fits the context better. I'm sure that editors on this page believe that this is allowable at WP. Duke53 | Talk 20:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Alas, COgden has been designated as worthy of response. My heart is broken and my tears can't stop. Oh, well, I am still eager to see the references. Curious, Smith did nto have a "definition", certainly one that does not conflict with any known definitions today. However, there is that spin issue that some have. Regardless, let's see what comes up. You trolls and stalkers stop pestering poor Duke. - Storm Rider 08:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I have opened a request for arbitration concerning Duke53's behavior. I think any further commentary regarding him, positive or otherwise, should be taken to that venue so that the content issues may be the focus here. alanyst / talk/ 14:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
We used to state here that Smith's vision was not well known among early saints. The references for this statement appear to remain in footnote 16, but we've since cut the statement out. The refs don't seem to have anything to do with "God told him...that all churches were false", and so need to be cleaned up.
Recently, someone tried changing "God told him" to "God (the Father) and Jesus Christ (the Son) appeared to him and told him". Foxe reverted, saying that "Bushman doesn't say this". However, the quoted Bushman page is 39, where he was summarizing Smith's 1832 account. Bushman then says at the end of page 39, "At first, Joseph was reluctant to talk about his vision", and at the top of page 40, "When he described his First Vision in 1832, he abbreviated the experience. ¶ As Joseph became more confident, more details came out." I'm not suggesting we assume Bushman's POV here—he is obviously providing apologetic reasoning for the differences between versions—but it is wrong to assume Bushman doesn't support that "Smith said God and Jesus appeared to him". ...comments? ~ B F izz 16:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
According to the Joseph Smith history, it plainly states i.e. there is no confusion or ability to misunderstand, that the first vision was not limited to a forgiveness of sins and it had a major impact on his life. Strange that something so significant is tossed aside. Is that done with Bernadette Soubirou? The quick answer is no; nor with Jesus, Muhammad, etc. etc. etc. - Storm Rider 14:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I think this article, or any other similar to it (i.e., where the subject is a controversial religious or political leader with a well studied and documented life), should achieve the following:
Does anyone have anything to add to this vision, or to contest? Having a collective vision akin to this would help guide our discussions and provide a foundation of mutual trust. A lot of arguments seem to stem from one side thinking the other side is trying to distort the article into something that favors their point of view. Agreement on what a non-distorted article might entail could perhaps avoid that sort of conflict. alanyst / talk/ 22:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
COgden, your remarks don't recognize the distinction I've tried to draw. Questions of historical fact should rightfully be answered by reliable historians, as expressed in the secondary sources they produce. The first two bullet points I offered above cover that aspect of a biographical article, both the agreed-upon and disputed questions of fact. But historical fact is not, in my opinion, the only aspect of a person's life that an encyclopedia article should endeavor to address. The third bullet point covers the realm of opinion regarding that person, and in general the notable opinions will not be limited to those of the scholars—they will also belong to the person's significant friends, enemies, the general public (with caveats), and himself or herself. Wikipedia should not endorse anyone's opinion of an article's subject, but ought to describe the important ones. Your examples of fringe views seem to speak to the objective (historical) aspects such as whether he did or said X, not the subjective aspects I meant to cover with that third bullet point such as judgments of his character, intentions, motivations, inbound and outbound influences, and so forth. alanyst / talk/ 06:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
We have previously kept record of this page's archives manually in the infobox near the top of the page. I suggest we switch to using this template: {{archives|search=yes|bot=MiszaBot I|age=14 days}} I've made the change already, but wanted to add this section here to make sure we could discuss it in case anyone is against it. ...comments? ~ B F izz 07:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I hesitate to embrace Storm's comparison between "scripture" describing Joseph Smith's life and "scripture" describing the life of Jesus; there are many differences, for example, the life of Smith is much more well-documented outside of scripture. However, it is true that The life of Jesus in the New Testament is written following the chronology of Jesus' life, rather than addressing the gospels in chronological order of when they were written; I can see where Storm's "double-standard" accusation is coming from. ...comments? ~ B F izz 00:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I think we are missing the elephant in the room, cultural history. We live in a culture which is heavily based in the traditions of the Catholic (Christian) practices. 500 years ago if you dared to criticize Jesus you were killed as a heretic. And the practice has endured of people raising a stink over disrespect for popular religious figures (Mohammed, Allah, Jesus, God ...). To avoid the reaction to such we have traditionally kept quiet on such matters. Now along comes Joseph Smith. Two differences arise. One, Joseph Smith is not accepted by the mainstream of American culture. Two, the LDS people take a pacifistic approach to religious persecutions against them. In essence, Mormons have become "fair game" because they do not have the critical numbers to support their position and because there is a common cultural acceptance of mocking their beliefs openly.
So what is the solution? I hope I am not offending anyone, but in the U.S. there seems to still be a culture of selective discrimination. I am more in favour of the general European model (the Swiss situation being atypical) of universal tolerance of all cultures and faiths, whether one likes them or not. I believe what I, and others, have been arguing all along is that our religious heritage be treated with the same dignity and respect as is shown others. I mean no offense, but it seems to me that most of the editors here are from the USA. My more 'progressive' non-LDS friends would likely call the tone here a bit 'redneck.' (I agree, it would be kind of hypocritical for them to stereotype 'stereotypers'). I am able to look beyond the regional characteristics and would argue this is not an individual, or even regional problem, but it is a systemic one. I wonder what this article would look like if it were researched and edited by contributors from a more Muslim or Jewish or Lutheran background (each culture having experience with religious discrimination). Again, no offense is intended here, but as an outsider to the American culture I felt my observations might be helpful.
As long as the individual editors here are going to continue with their labeling and defamation of Joseph Smith as a liar, an adulterer, and a traitor (and then turn the same dirty brush on a mother of 9 who knew a life of incredible hardship and persecution) the problem won't end. As long as the key editors here have a negative attitude toward this religiously sensitive figure the problem won't end. The article will be stuck in the miry clay of intolerance, and common readers will be left with a cynical and skeptical view of Wikipedia as a whole.
I've been calling for a paradigm shift here all along. Not to push Joseph Smith. To push fairness. I would be just as vocal if Luther, or Mohammed, or Billy Graham were treated in the same insensitive way. I know it is not likely that the same editors who brought us to this point will be the ones to fix the problem. But as long as these posts are archived, I figure I'd wade in and offer my thoughts for improvement.
Canadiandy1 ( talk) 21:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy
Oh, believe me, I was not offering Bob Sr. as a gold standard. I was offereing it as an example of an article edited by John Foxe that is a complete powder puff, but one that is obviously acceptable to Foxe. That is a flagrant double standard perfectable acceptable to Fox.
Now we have a proposal to compare it to L Ron Hubbard. Tell me boys and girls does this fish stink? Is that why it was chosen? Particularly when the comparison initially was with the Jesus and the Muhammad articles. Are not Jesus and Muhammad founders of religions? Why are they not appropriate? - Storm Rider 13:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I think this disagreement stems from differences in people's vision of what this article should be. I'll start a discussion below. alanyst / talk/ 22:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Why is the fact that he was tried and convicted of being a con artist being white washed.
"State Of New York v. Joseph Smith"
State court records prove the Smith was arrested in New York in 1826 for being a con artist. "Warrant issued upon written complaint upon oath of Peter G. Bridgeman, who informed that one Joseph Smith of Bainbridge was a disorderly person and an impostor. Prisoner brought before the Court March 20, 1826. Prisoner examined: says that he came from the town of Palmyra ... that he had a certain stone which he occasionally looked at to determine where hidden treasures in the bowels of the earth were; that he professed to tell in this manner where gold mines were a distance under ground ... he pretended to tell by looking at this stone where coined money was buried in Pennsylvania, and while at Palmyra he frequently ascertained in that way where lost property was of various kinds..." (Court records of New York). While the Mormons claimed this never happened, Jerald and Sandra Tanner published the microfilm copies of the court records in 1971, under the title, Joseph Smith's 1826 Trial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.25.6.27 ( talk) 21:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Joseph Smith's 1826 trial (microfilm listed on Google Books published by Jerald and Sandra Tanner).
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.25.6.27 ( talk) 21:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
'Con Artist' is not a very neutral phrase. The fact that it is used reveals the bias we are working against in this article. When will the vicious tone end?
Canadiandy1 ( talk) 14:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy
The phrase "commonly known as Mormonism" after "founder of the Latter Day Saint movement" was removed on the grounds that the term "Mormon" refers specifically to the church following Brigham Young taking over. While I am not a Mormon, from what I understand, this may be technically correct. However, I still think the term "Mormon" should appear somewhere in the lead because many readers will only know the movement by that name, and I do want to make clear to them what we're talking about. Perhaps something like "which led to the movement known as Mormonism" or something of that nature?
For what it's worth, the lead our article Latter Day Saint movement presents the two terms as synonymous, but our article Mormonism does not. Kansan ( talk) 15:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Why should these descriptors appear in the second sentence of the lead? They all depend on Smith's founding and leadership of the Latter Day Saint movement. What did Smith write? What city did he ever successfully plan? Weren't his attempts at military leadership and involvement in politics absolute disasters?-- John Foxe ( talk) 10:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
It certainly doesn't matter if the projects failed. The real issue is if it's important enough to be in the lede. I mean, if George Washington collected butterflies, would anyone care? Would anyone care enough for it to be mentioned in the lede on George Washington? Likewise, is/should Joseph Smith be known for being a presidential candidate, or are there a half-dozen things more important? tedder ( talk) 17:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Serious John Foxe? When I first read your entry I actually thought for a moment that someone might have hacked your account. Very disappointing to see an editor who has been becoming more and more fair minded over the past few months suddenly do an about turn. Sad, really. Are you purposely trying to set the pendulum swinging again? I will give that Joseph Smith might not be a great author, but only if we are willing to accept the premise that the Book of Mormon is actually authored by Ancient prophets of God through revelation. Otherwise, the Book of Mormon is an amazing work of literature, inspired or not.
Disappointedly,
173.180.109.246 ( talk) 01:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy
Most participants of the conversation have agreed that we should, or conceded that we could, include a second sentence in the first paragraph of the lede, mentioning additional aspects of Smith's life. The following aspects have been suggested:
I think most of us could agree to leave off writer/author due to the ambiguity of what Smith "wrote". His writings are notable for their religious content, anyways, and the idea of him being a religious leader is already portrayed. The phrase "failed military leader" is unheard of on Wikipedia, (contrast with "military leader") so I doubt it would be appropriate here. "Theocratic ruler" is also rare (slightly more common: "theocratic leader"), though this is understandable, (theocratic rulers are probably much rarer than failed military leaders) so I'm somewhat open to that wording. There's been hesitation to touch the subject (by everyone except Foxe), but quite frankly "polygamist" is also a big part of understanding who Joseph Smith was.
Therefore, I propose something along these lines for the second sentence: "He was also a city planner, politician, military leader, theocrat, and a polygamist." The idea struck me to say "He was also influential as..." to begin that sentence, but I have mixed feelings about that. ...comments? ~ B F izz 03:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
mainstream view is that joseph smith was a conscious fraud. it is impossible to reconcile his laughable "scriptures" with history and/or common sense. but by all means, don't mention it in your lead, wikipedia; portray him as a "religious leader." lol 99.255.117.65 ( talk) 05:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
The words "more than ten years after founding the church" have been removed several times from the caption of the image that concerns the First Vision. This removal is an attempt to prevent casual readers from discovering a significant feature about Smith's First Vision: that there is no independent record of Joseph Smith having reported the vision for more than a decade after it supposedly occurred. In other words, removing those words is an POV attempt to remove helpful information for the casual reader, who will probably look at images first. Many individuals through the centuries have had visions of gods; rarely, if ever, have they concealed their visions for years. This aspect of Joseph Smith's behavior makes the words "more than ten years after founding the church" significant to the understanding of the casual reader.-- John Foxe ( talk) 15:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
There seems to be a pointed effort to interpret the later publication of Joseph Smith's first vision as some negative criticism. Again, I am personally quite comfortable now seeing the negativism so severe here. It actually makes it more likely fair-minded readers will look to sites such as lds.org for more reliable information on the subject. The louder you yell at people not to look at the elephant in the room, the more likely they'll be interested.
So why might Joseph have focused on a publication of his First Vision later in life? Those who know anything about his history will have read his canonized history. In his own words,
"Some few days after I had this vision, I happened to be in company with one of the Methodist preachers, who was very active in the before mentioned religious excitement; and, conversing with him on the subject of religion, I took occasion to give him an account of the vision which I had had. I was greatly surprised at his behavior; he treated my communication not only lightly, but with great contempt, saying it was all of the devil, that there were no such things as visions or revelations in these days; that all such things had ceased with the apostles, and that there would never be any more of them. I soon found, however, that my telling the story had excited a great deal of prejudice against me among professors of religion, and was the cause of great persecution, which continued to increase; and though I was an obscure boy, only between fourteen and fifteen years of age, and my circumstances in life such as to make a boy of no consequence in the world, yet men of high standing would take notice sufficient to excite the public mind against me, and create a bitter persecution; and this was common among all the sects—all united to persecute me."
So remembering that Joseph Smith was persecuted (Murdered) for his religious beliefs from the moment he mentioned this vision, is it any wonder he focused more on the Book of Mormon and the organization of the Church than on his own revelation? Remember, the First Vision was a revelation whose intended audience was Joseph Smith, answering his questions. The other revelations he received, however were intended more specifically for the Church and the world. The fact he didn't walk around boasting about this sacred experience actually reveals a reverence.
In short, there's nothing to see here folks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiandy1 ( talk • contribs) 03:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
The current version is quite good: As his theology matured during the late 1830s, Smith recalled a vision of God the Father and Jesus, whom he described as two distinct, corporeal "personages." I support this version as an acceptable alternative to the text I said I was "entirely satisfied" with. "Corporeal" was a particularly good addition, imho. ...comments? ~ B F izz 01:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I fully agree, Rockford. A few days ago it read clearly and simply enough. Now it looks very "bloated." The term, "As his theology matured" is wordy and confusing. What's wrong with the word, 'later'? Or the phrase, 'later in life'. I second the concern over the term, 'recalled.' I highly doubt Joseph ever forgot such a pivotal experience. Perhaps the term 'reflected' but not 'recalled.' This reads very negative POV. Canadiandy1 ( talk) 21:07, 9 April 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy
I've taken a stab at cleaning it up and simplifying it. Canadiandy1 ( talk) 18:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy
Whether or not Smith is a reliable source, my edit simply stated that he "recorded" having seen a vision. Is there reasonable evidence to prove he is not the author of "Joseph Smith - History" as published in the Pearl of Great Price? I thought my edit was both clear and balanced. Please revert back. Canadiandy1 ( talk) 01:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy
That Joseph taught God had a tangible body does not exclude him from teaching God as also being a spirit. In LDS understanding a soul is the combination of body and spirit. Nothing to see here. Please revert. 173.180.109.246 ( talk) 15:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy
I've changed it to read thus: "Smith said he had a vision of God the Father and Jesus, whom he described as two distinct 'personages.'" It's my good-faith effort at finding a wording that everyone can live with, that doesn't try to push any particular POV, and that still has relevance to the section it illustrates. alanyst 18:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, John. Neutral non-LDS contributors have now tried to make the caption more balanced, but since it keeps getting reverted to its present confrontational biased state, I am comfortable that the fair-minded reader will see through things and actually look at both sides of the issue. And the dark foil here is actually quite a nice compliment to the courteous and dignified treatment found elsewhere. 173.180.109.246 ( talk) 00:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy
I'm not sure that the addition of a source was the solution sought. The problem was clearly identified as a biased presumption and a wordy (bloated) caption. Canadiandy1 ( talk) 00:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy
I still don't like the implied notion that Joseph Smith's theology "changed." While he may have communicated it with greater complexity in his later life, there is nothing I have seen or read which proves a changing theology. Enhanced, perhaps, but not changed. I would be comfortable with, "Smith described Jesus Christ and God the Father as two distinct physical beings." Of course, if you are looking to accept the LDS perspective, it would read more like, "Joseph Smith learned early in life that Jesus Christ and Heavenly Father had bodies of flesh and blood." Yeah, I know it would be perceived as bias, perhaps as relatively biased as the caption now reads. 173.180.109.246 ( talk) 05:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy
John. I will repeat the concern which I voiced earlier and which you still have not addressed, John. My edit did not state anything which made Joseph Smith a source. It merely stated that Joseph Smith "recorded" that he saw God and Jesus Christ. Unless there is evidence that someone else shadow-wrote the Pearl of Great Price, or unless you actually want to attribute his words completely as the words of God and not his own, there is no reason my original edit was anything but fair, neutral, and clear. I say again, please revert. 173.180.109.246 ( talk) 14:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy
You are right that it is a question, John. And until we know the answer we include what we know. We know Joseph Smith recorded that he saw God and Jesus Christ. It looks like I need to make the revert, thanks. 173.180.109.246 ( talk) 15:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy
The devil is in the details. The phrase about Smith's "later" theology seems purposely placed to imply an inconsistent theology. I do not believe all of the sources on Joseph Smith are implying Joseph did not have his reported vision. In fact his own words suggest the vision occurred at the age of 14. So to state this was only a later theology is to straight out accuse him of fabricating his original vision. Yes, John, I am sure you believe that is the case, fair. But surely you can't argue every source on Joseph Smith "knows" that he fabricated his early vision.
Fair wording would simply drop the word 'later'. The article already entertains enough pointed criticism on the subject for those who are interested in such things.
Canadiandy1 ( talk) 00:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy
Concerning the word 'corporeal.' As the caption now reads it seems to allude that this is Joseph's phraseology. Could we not use his own words if it is already neutrally identified as his own report. If not, it needs to read such that the term is clearly connected to the researchers/editors who have synthesized his words? For example,
Joseph's record of this vision identifies God and Jesus Christ as having what religious historians have termed 'corporeal' bodies.
Yeah, I know that wording sucks, but I think you get the idea. Indirect quotes are tricky things which is why I usually avoid them. Canadiandy1 ( talk) 00:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy
COgden,
I don't think I'm going to roll over on this one. Based on my understanding of the First Vision, I do not personally believe Joseph Smith's theology "evolved" or "matured." Consider the following insights from Milton V. Backman Jr.;
"On at least four different occasions, Joseph Smith either wrote or dictated to scribes accounts of his sacred experience of 1820. Possibly he penned or dictated other histories of the First Vision; if so, they have not been located. The four surviving recitals of this theophany were prepared or rendered through different scribes, at different times, from a different perspective, for different purposes and to different audiences. It is not surprising, therefore, that each of them emphasizes different aspects of his experience. When Latter-day Saints today explain this remarkable vision to others, their descriptions often vary according to the audience or circumstances that prompt such reports. If one were relating the incident to a group of high priests, for example, he would undoubtedly tell it somewhat differently than he would to individuals who had never heard of the restoration of the gospel or of Joseph Smith.
In an important way, the existence of these different accounts helps support the integrity of the Latter-day Saint Prophet. It indicates that Joseph did not deliberately create a memorized version which he related to everyone. In the legal profession, attorneys and judges recognize that if a witness repeats an incident by using precisely the same language, the court might challenge the validity of such a statement."
Nobody could ever prove that Joseph Smith understood his experience any differently as he aged. Speculate, sure. That it was reported differently is to be expected. So I call bias when individuals want to use loaded language such as "matured" or "evolved." I still see no valid argument against simply stating that "Joseph Smith recorded having seen God the Father and Jesus Christ at the age of 14. He noted that they were distinct beings with tangible bodies." 173.180.109.246 ( talk) 04:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy
COgden, you and Foxe have provided no references that "all" or even "mainline", "majority" of historians and theologians have agreed that Smith's theology changed. Being a little familiar with the topic, I will also say a reference does not exist, but I am open to being corrected. It is only your opinion that such is the case and your and Foxe's repeitition of such a statement or position does not make it real or correct. I ask both of you to drop the phrase and just use it in other media.
The LDS Church does teach that Smith received revelation his entire life and expanded on concepts first taught. However, that is not the same thing as changed. Evolved may be accurate depending upon the context of the statement and its specific topic.
The proposition that it "changed" is debatable; there is no single answer or perspective. - Storm Rider 06:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
How about simply removing the image, thereby finessing the problem of a caption?-- John Foxe ( talk) 10:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)