![]() | 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 15 | ← | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 |
I made this chronology to better show the life of Joseph Smith.-- 217.230.255.153 ( talk) 17:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Events in the Life of Joseph Smith | |
---|---|
Important dates and locations in the life of Joseph Smith | |
Dec. 23, 1805 | Joseph Smith, Jr., is born at Sharon, Windsor County, Vermont. |
Spring 1820 | Joseph Smith states that he receives a visitation from two heavenly personages; God the Father and His son Jesus Christ. |
Sept. 21, 1823 | Smith prays and, according to his writings, describes that he is visited three times during the night by an angel named Moroni. Moroni tells him about a hidden book and quotes scriptures from the books of Acts, Joel, Isaiah, and Malachi. |
Sept. 22, 1823 | Smith states that he went to the place where the gold plates are concealed, but is instructed by the angel Moroni not to retrieve them. |
January. 18, 1827 | Smith elopes with Emma Hale in South Bainbridge, New York and they are married by judge "Squire Tarbill" (Zachariah Tarbell) |
Sept. 22, 1827 | Smith states that he receives the gold plates. |
Dec. 1827–Feb. 1828 | Smith describes that he begins translating the gold plates (The Book of Mormon) with Emma and her brother Reuben as scribes. Later scribes included Martin Harris (who lost the 116 pages known as the Book of Lehi) and Oliver Cowdery. |
May 15, 1829 | The conferral of the Aaronic priesthood on Smith and Cowdery is recorded. They received the Melchizedek Priesthood later that month. |
July 1, 1829 | According to David Whitmer, the translation was completed July 1, 1829. Oliver Cowdery copies an entire second manuscript in case of robbery or destruction of the first. |
Aug. 25, 1829 | A contract is drawn up with E.B. Grandin to print 5,000 copies of the book for $3,000. Martin Harris mortgages his farm to Grandin to pay for the printing. |
Mar. 26, 1830 | The Wayne Sentinel announces that the Book of Mormon has been published and advertises its sale. |
Apr. 6, 1830 | The " Church of Jesus Christ" is officially organized in the home of Peter Whitmer, Sr., in Fayette, NY. |
June 9, 1830 | The first General conference of the newly formed Church of Christ was held in Fayette, New York, presided over by Joseph Smith. It included a gathering of the 27 members of the two-month-old church. |
early June 1831 | Smith wrote that "the authority of the Melchizedek priesthood was manifested and conferred for the first time upon several of the Elders" |
Mar. 24, 1832 | Joseph Smith is tarred by a mob. |
Mar. 29, 1832 | Smith's adopted son, Joseph Murdock Smith, dies from a cold caught when he was pulled from Joseph's arms during the mobbing. |
July, 1835 | Smith states that he translated the majority of the Book of Abraham text. |
August 17, 1835 | The Doctrine and Covenants was first introduced to the church body in a general conference. |
March 27, 1836 | The Kirtland Temple was dedicated in an eight-hour service. |
Oct. 27, 1838 | Missouri Governor Lilburn W. Boggs's issues an extermination order against the Mormons. |
Oct. 30, 1838 | A mob of 240 men shoot and kill nearly 20 Latter-day Saints and wound about 15 in an unexpected raid at Jacob Haun's Mill, Caldwell County, Missouri. |
May 9-10, 1839 | Joseph Smith Moves to Nauvoo, Illinois. |
June 1, 1840 | The city of Nauvoo grows to 250 homes |
October 19, 1840 | The practice of baptism for the dead is established. |
March 1, 1842 | The Wentworth letter was first published in the Times and Seasons. |
June 7, 1844 | The Nauvoo Expositor published only one issue. |
June 24-25, 1844 | Joseph Smith and his brother Hyrum Smith leave for Carthage and are arrested for treason by Constable David Bettisworth. |
June 27, 1844 Thursday | Joseph Smith and Hyrum Smith killed by a mob at Carthage Jail, Illinois. [1] |
Because nobody objected the timeline, I add it now again.-- 84.177.226.162 ( talk) 15:31, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I deleted the Civil War prophecy and inserted instead the Kirtland Temple.-- 84.177.250.228 ( talk) 18:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
I added three more items but I think we should improve this timeline together, so please contribute to the timeline.-- 87.163.252.108 ( talk) 16:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I added now the improved timeline.-- 217.230.233.146 ( talk) 11:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
I CREATED THIS WHOLE TIMELINE. SO PLEASE DISCUSS IT NOW!-- 217.230.233.146 ( talk) 14:15, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
I apologice for my shouting. But please discuss this timeline and do not move to some other topics.-- 217.230.243.50 ( talk) 16:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
My entire work was for nothing. You can still discuss this timeline. But I have abandoned the discussion-- 217.230.243.50 ( talk) 18:45, 12 March 2012 (UTC).
I am very sad right now. I thought this timeline was a great idea.-- 217.230.243.50 ( talk) 18:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
It seems here on wikipedia a race is going to shut down Mormonism whereby the competitors have effectively being banned. It seems to be a consensus that "Mormon POV is biased" and should not be tolerated. That is not, justified. Why? The same logic as what John Foxe is using would imply:
And so forth. Every argument has two sides and the rationale seems to be here that all LDS claims ought to be automatically dismissed at the word go because "they are LDS". You can't have it both ways, at the end of the day LDS scholarship counts as much as any other form of scholarship too, to say only Mormons can be biased is insane. Who's to say there is no bias behind the critical scholars then? Of course, Foxe is happy to degrade any LDS-scholar to an "Apologist". These tactics are unfair, unjustified and a crime against the liberal editing platform of this website. Tolerate mormon claims and opinions, please. -- 202.74.162.183 ( talk) 06:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I've added a verify credibility tag to the Quinn (1994) reference that claims the text was conveyed by Smith to Rigdon's 19-year-old daughter, since the source (attributed to Mormonism critic D. Michael Quinn) is biased, and since it does not jive with what is recorded in the History of the Church (HC; online here), Vol. 5, p.134-136.
My concerns are: (a) HC does not indicate this text was transmitted in a letter to Rigdon's daughter; in fact, it appears to be a discourse from Smith titled Happiness. (b) There is also a small difference (in bold) below, and crucial context is missing.
Quinn: "that which is wrong under one circumstance, may be and often is, right under another. God said thou shalt not kill—at another time he said thou shalt utterly destroy. This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted—by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the elders of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right...even things which may be considered abominable to all those who do not understand the order of heaven."
Smith (HC):
"Happiness is the object and design of our existence; and will be the end thereof, if we pursue the path that leads to it; and this path is virtue, uprightness, faithfulness, holiness, and keeping all the commandments of God. But we cannot keep all the commandments without first knowing them, and we cannot expect to know all, or more than we now know unless we comply with or keep those we have already received. That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another. God said, "Thou shalt not kill;" at another time He said "Thou shalt utterly destroy." This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted--by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire. If we seek first the kingdom of God, all good things will be added. So with Solomon: first he asked wisdom, and God gave it him, and with it every desire of his heart, even things which might be considered abominable to all who understand the order of heaven only in part, but which in reality were right because God gave and sanctioned by special revelation."Are there any reliable sources that indicate the text was in fact conveyed to Rigdon's daughter in the circumstances described by Quinn? If not, the text (which is supported by both sources) can stay, but the story about the polygamous proposal should be removed from the footnote. Regards — Eustress talk 06:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
When the article mentions Smith's childhood illness, it says that it occurred when Smith was eight. However, according to "Church History in the Fulness of Times," pg. 23, it states that Smith was seven, or in his eighth year. I think some consensus ought to be reached about this. A minor point, to be sure, but still important. I believe I saw a source in the article for the claim that he was eight, but now we have this other source that says he was seven. What should be done about this? -- Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable ( talk) 14:20, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to merge the section on "Ethics and behavior" with the "Legacy" section that immediately follows it. Here's my reasoning: The Ethics section is currently very short, and in a nutshell says that Smith believed earthly law was superseded by revelation. The Legacy section gives several contrasting views of Smith from the point of view of Evangelical Christians (liar or lunatic), Mormons (prophet and "choice seer"), and people in his day (fraud, etc.). I would like to modify the section to reflect some of the scholarly views I've found, like the complex but impetuous religious thinker (Bushman), the "pious deceiver" (Vogel), and the opportunist (Brodie). I'd like to start the section stating that it's unlikely that there will ever be consensus on Smith's character and achievements, but then give some of the contrasting views. The "Ethics" are closely tied to the character, so that material shouldn't be hard to work in. Thoughts? ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 21:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
I realized today as I was working on the draft that the two sections are going to be harder to merge than I thought. I was at a point where I had footnoted most of the "ethics" material, and it still wasn't fitting quite right. I think the ethics material is important, so I've decided not to try to merge the sections. I've done a lot of work on the "Legacy" section, though, and I'd still like to rework some of that in the article. I also think the subsection heading "Ethics and behavior" should be changed to "Ethics." The section doesn't talk a whole lot about behavior, and it's under the section of "Distinctive views and teachings" and "behavior" isn't really a teaching or a view. ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 16:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
There have been some recent edits ( [1], [2]) that challenge the statement that historians view Smith as one of the most charismatic and inventive figures in American religious history. It seems User:Cush's view is that only Mormons view him as such, while real "mainstream" historians view Smith as a "fraud, con-man, and religious nutjob". This goes contrary to what I've read in the sources, where no matter what the author's take on Smith, they almost always acknowledge his genius/charisma/importance/impact. Take, for instance, the following non-Mormon historians (who, I'd guess, many Mormons would call "anti-Mormon"):
Additionally, the view that Smith was a creative genius should not be ascribed to his followers, particularly since many would see such a view as undermining their belief (that the Book of Mormon was a translation, not a composition). ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 18:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
The lead is currently too long, as Adjwilley pointed out, and I wanted to have a discussion of how to best shorten it. I haven't read through it in a while, and I think that has let me see it with fresh eyes. I think the main problem with it is that it has too much granular detail on Smith's history, and not enough broad perspective. It is a "can't see the forest for the trees" introduction, and it focuses too much on the church, rather than Smith himself. There are certain details that are not that important. I don't think we need to name his parents, for example. The main points I think we do need to hit, at least briefly, are as follows:
I also want to frame all this in terms of Smith personally, rather than Mormons as a whole. I know this is a tall order to do this in 3-4 paragraphs, but I don't see why it can't be done. COGDEN 21:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Why is this important period in Smith's early life breezed over with one clause on Folk religion. Certainly his conviction in New York for being an imposter is notable. — GabeMc ( talk) 02:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Excerpt "After being arrested for defrauding his clients, Joseph Smith Jr. found a set of golden plates in a hillside in Manchester, New York (others were not allowed to see them), which revealed to him (in a language only he could read) that Jesus would return to Independence, Missouri."
99.119.128.213 ( talk) 03:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
This article is so obviously massaged and managed by LDS zealots that people coming here to learn about this man are only going to get this carefully sanitized end-run of the truth. Clearly, it doesn't matter what source is used that frankly discusses the ridiculous impossibility of this charlatan's fabricated tales, it won't be allowed to stand in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.232.74.109 ( talk) 20:36, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
The first sentence does not mention that Joseph Smith, Jr, started The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It mentions Mormonism and Latter Day Saint movement, neither of which is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, (LDS Church). — Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 15:13, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
For those not familiar with the history here, there was a long argument over this (preserved in Archive 20) that eventually resulted in my making this edit as a compromise between myself and John Foxe. The paragraph has been fairly stable since then, though several footnotes were cropped out at one point. Anyway, a recent publication brought the fact to my attention that a key source is being quoted incorrectly. Currently the footnote reads,
What Allen actually says is,
Allen explicitly refutes the idea being attributed to him here at least twice more in the course of the article. Anyway, I'm not sure where the misunderstanding/confusion happened, but because it figured so prominently into the compromise, I'm in effect reneging on that, and restoring the earlier version (with a couple tweaks). As always, if anybody disagrees, feel free to revert and discuss, or simply discuss. ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 17:55, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
User:Arrivisto has made a few edits to the article recently, most of which I have reverted. The first edit (3 days ago) had several problems that I indicated in my edit summary. [5] The second string of edits had various problems with Weight and NPOV, and moved information around in a way that made it hard to see what exactly was changed. (I did notice that the "alleged" was removed in "alleged treason".) Anyway, I reverted those edits too, but fixed a couple problems that had been pointed out, and added a bit about Dawkins et al dismissing Smith as a charlatan.
Anyway I figured I'd start a section here on the talk page where these edits can be discussed. ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 15:41, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
I feel like I should further explain my rational for reverting this recent edit to the Lead. The main problem is that it's just not that black and white. Yes, plenty of people think he was a fraud, but the actual scholars and historians who have studied him would never make a statement like that. But before I get too far, let me outline the premises I'm basing my arguments on.
Ok. Now let's take the phrase "critics regard him as a fraud and mountebank." Does that make Smith notable? I would argue no. If being regarded as a fraud and mountebank made someone notable than every self-proclaimed prophet and crank would get their own Wikipedia article. What makes Smith notable is that he started a major religion that survived his death; he's not notable because people think he's a fraud.
Now back to the scholars. There are many scholars–Mormon and non-Mormon–who have written about Smith. (Recent ones have done some really excellent work.) But regardless of the scholars' religion or point of view, they stop short of calling him an outright fraud. For instance, Dan Vogel, an ex-Mormon, calls Smith a "pious fraud" or somebody who deceives in God's name because they feel called to do so for a good purpose. That's much more nuanced than "fraud and mountebank". Anyway, if you disagree with my logic or my premises, I'd be happy to discuss it further. ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 21:24, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
None of this changes the fact that he irrefutably was convicted of fraud 70.104.193.137 ( talk) 03:14, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
It has been a while since I read through the lead, and I think we are very close to getting it just about perfect. And I know it has been pretty stable for quite a long time. On the micro-level, it is great. But after reading it through it with fresh eyes, I am beginning to see that perhaps the third paragraph is a little problematic.
That one paragraph has an incredible amount of history, from 1831 to 1844, and it seems to just pack everything in like a sardine can. It does this very efficiently and remarkably evenhandedly, and I hate to undo all the work we have put into it, but I think it's just too much. Plus, it is focused more on the church than upon Smith himself.
Are we trying to do too much in the third paragraph? What if we just zoomed out a little bit and used a bigger-picture approach to the 1831-44 era? I'm not sure I have the answers on how to do this, but here is a very rough suggestion that illustrates sort of what I'm thinking:
COGDEN 02:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Impressing article, have some comments/questions. I will follow this article for some time, as the Norwegian article on same topic need some improvements. Is it some reason to why the sentence "Smith's role in the Latter Day Saint religion was comparable to that of Muhammad in early Islam" is using was, and not is?
And reference 428, Bushman, lacks page reference, or is "xx" correct page reference? Grrahnbahr ( talk) 13:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
"xx" is the correct page number. (It's in the Preface.) ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 14:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Shii ( talk · contribs) 07:15, 25 October 2012 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Greetings editors. Just a request if a couple of you could come over to the Emma Smith page and assist. An editor keeps insisting that in 1838 the name of the church was changed to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, citing the current LDS D&C as the reference. I pointed out that the name as adopted in 1838 was actually the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and that the addition of the capitalized 'The' and use of 'Latter-day' did not occur until several years later by the church in Utah. Of course I added a couple of refs to support this fact. Best, A Sniper ( talk) 03:49, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't see any mention of the well documented plurality of Smith's forced underage mariages, both to himself and others, constituting rape, statutory rape and accomplice to rape of a minor. We see contemporarily that the FLDS, namely Warren Jeffs, an adherent to Smith's teachings, charged and convicted of these very crimes. It is noteworthy and biographical. For a change someone with a NPOV and not someone who has 30+ or 300+ contextual edits on this page and related wikis tackle this with the excellent documentation that exists. Thanks! 76.106.2.110 ( talk) 07:08, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Most Latter Day Saint people, (not just LDS Church Members) use the Template:Infobox Latter Day Saint biography and Joseph Smith has Template:Latter Day Saint biography/Joseph Smith. therfore the template used on this page, Template:LDSInfobox/JS could could be merged very quickly into Template:Latter Day Saint biography/Joseph Smith. It would end up looking like this:
{{ LDSInfobox/JS}} |
{{ Latter Day Saint biography/Joseph Smith}} |
I think the change would be good, so that this pages infobox would expand and change just along with all the other lists that include Joseph Smith, which attach threw the Template:Infobox Latter Day Saint biography setup. However, whenever someone edits Joseph Smith there is a huge issue, so I tend to avoid it as much as possible. So if no one thinks it's a good idea, I wont make the change.-- ARTEST4ECHO ( talk/ contribs) 17:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
It is clear that Smith is a polarizing figure. He is either unquestioningly accepted by the LDS faithful as a prophet, or he is branded a con man by detractors. To ignore these questions, as this article largely does, is a great disservice to the reader. This is a theme that needs exploration in ANY article about Smith, and is not really covered here. Criticisms and questions regarding Smith's status as a true prophet of God strike at the very heart of LDS belief, and there have been many, on their face, seemingly reasonable objections to that status. 68.46.132.39 ( talk) 02:06, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Jessethearies, welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy your time here. I hope you don't take this personally, or as a sign of bad faith on the part of pro-Smith Mormon apologetics, but I'm debating removing your recent edits, for the simple fact that those are block quotations from later Mormon leaders, and there is no real evidence (of which I'm aware) that Smith ever taught those things himself.
Care to discuss? — Trevdna ( talk) 17:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't mean to edit and log out, but I had an emergency to attend to. Here is an article by Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research about the status of Joseph Smith in LDS belief. FAIR is a non-profit organization formed for the purpose of defending the Church. I don't mind where the information is put I just hope it gets out there for people to investigate.
http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Status_in_LDS_belief — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.199.138.131 ( talk) 10:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Again i'm sorry I didn't know I was still logged out. Is there any way that my I.P. address can be taken down from the posts where I was logged out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessethearies ( talk • contribs) 10:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Both FAC reviewers so far have mentioned the overcitation in this article. I'd like to look for consensus here on the talk page before slashing and burning them - especially since I wasn't present for much of the POV warring that led to them, so I'm not as familiar with which ones are useful, and which ones are just left-overs. What would be the best way to reduce the overcitation?
I'm thinking, to begin with, that we eliminate all (or most) mid-sentence citations, and merge them with their citations that appear at the end of the sentence. Also, we could be much more selective on which long blockquotes we include in the citations themselves, or pare down lengthy blockquotes into shorter snippets.
Thoughts? Ideas? - Trevdna ( talk) 19:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
I should probably provide an explanation for this edit. Initially I thought sourcing it would be easy, since sources already exist in the article saying the same things. I realized, however, that the two paragraphs are very redundant with the other stuff. The first paragraph (Smith was innovative and divisive) is redundant with the 2nd paragraph in the "Impact" section. The second paragraph about Smith's teachings evolving from temporal to spiritual is redundant with the last paragraph in the "Other revelations" subsection immediately above. Anyway, that's the reason I ended up just blanking it. ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 23:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
There seems to be some disagreement over whether Smith used one or two stones to dictate the Book of Mormon, how to present this in an image caption, and how specific the wording should be. I am currently supporting a wording saying that according to some accounts he used the the single brown stone for much of it. (I want the more general wording to reflect disagreement I've found in the sources.) User:Canstusdis seems to support a wording that drops all reference to the U&T and implies that only the single brown stone was used. I guess the question I have is, why is this such a big deal? It wasn't a big deal to Joseph Smith, who used the two interchangeably. It wasn't a big deal to the scribes or his followers, some of whom took to calling other stones urim and thummims. It isn't a big deal to most of the biographers, none of whom make a statement as direct as the one Canstusdis seems to be trying to be putting in the caption (perhaps a sign of WP:OR). It's not a big deal to Mormons...whether one stone or two stones were used, they still think the Book of Mormon was inspired. And it's not a big deal to non-Mormons...who cares if any stones were used at all: the Book of Mormon was a fabrication, and it was probably a manuscript in the hat anyway. So the question remains, why is this such a big deal, why is is so important, and why does this need to be highlighted in an image caption? ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 23:49, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
OK, I can understand removing the painting of Carthage Jail, since it's based on a description of events that may or may not have actually happened. I'll try to get a picture of the actual jail here when I have more time. (I'm sure there's one we could use at Carthage Jail. But I only have a few minutes.) However, I think the image of the golden plates is worth keeping in the article, because it's a representation of an artifact of such critical importance to Smith's life. Whether they were real or not is subject to debate, of course, so the caption to the plates could and probably should be reworded to reflect that. But you can't have an article about Joseph Smith without the Book of Mormon, and you can't talk about the Book of Mormon without the golden plates. It's a critical thing to illustrate how they looked / how Smith claimed they looked.
Thoughts? Trevdna ( talk) 16:18, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Let the record show that I'm bowing out of this conversation here. You two seem like you've got a better handle on how you'd like to see the article than I do at this point. Trevdna ( talk) 21:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Notice that I'm still the last one to comment here. Not sure why Adjwilley hasn't replied. I suppose he'd like for me to build consensus by myself? Canstusdis ( talk) 23:58, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
@ Canstusdis - if you still have overall concerns about the picture being misleading, you might consider editing the caption in some way. I don't have anything particular in mind - it might end up being too awkward to try to include a disclaimer like that in a caption, but it's an idea.
Also, I'm going to try to find another suitable picture for Carthage Jail somewhere online (when I get the chance), because truthfully I can't stand the one we put up - it's low-res and black and white. Blech. As I understand it, for a new image to gain consensus, it must
Am I leaving anything out? Trevdna ( talk) 23:18, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay on this - real life (and poor time management on my part) is keeping me from working on much of anything Wiki-related and may continue to do so for a while longer. Classes just started for me. Don't count on me too much for much of anything around here for a while. Trevdna ( talk) 18:59, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
The just-completed FAC seems to have brought up a lot of issues that I hadn't honestly considered. School really chose a bad time to pull me away from dedicating time to this article, because I feel that this article was really close, and for the most part, really only needed some fine tuning. (I'm actually a little frustrated, because I would have liked to dispute a few of the objections that were raised, that I felt weren't really warranted. But such is life.)
Having said that, I think it would be appropriate to put up a to-do list, based on the FAC:
Also, reading through the article, I'm noticing the following:
<delete>* "Soon after Smith and Rigdon arrived at Far West, hundreds of disaffected Latter Day Saints who had remained in Kirtland followed them to Missouri." is confusing; if they were disaffected, why did they come back? (The citation clears it up a bit, but the article is still confusing.)</delete>
Looking through the article on POV concerns:
Trevdna ( talk) 21:53, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, I've done quite a bit of work on it, and it seems more clear. The only problem is, I've expanded it greatly, and now I feel like the section as a whole is given undue weight: even though it was a really controversial time of Smith's life, it was less than two years. So, if someone else has ideas on how to shorten it (without sacrificing clarity or NPOV), that would be great. I'd kind of prefer that anyone who takes it on, try to merge the removed material into the relevant subarticle(s), since I have worked hard on it. But if not, that's OK too, I suppose. I mean, my real goal right now is FA status for the main article, not so much with the subarticles. (Yet?)
And if no one works on it for a while, I might just jump back in myself at a later date. Trevdna ( talk) 18:33, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
The lede says: "Smith is widely regarded as one of the most influential, charismatic, innovative, and controversial figures in American religious history"
That is not only very subjective, without implying any objective information, which is contrary to WP policies, but also it clearly consists of adjectives that classify as WP:PEA and also WP:LABEL. I had removed that phrase and was reverted by someone who said they are present on the section "impact" and are referenced. But my point is, even if they are referenced, I don't think it justifies them to be on the article, being highly subjective judgmental remarks without implying any objective information. I think it's at the very least, against the style of Wikipedia. GreyWinterOwl ( talk) 16:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
One of the paragraphs begins as follows: "The Smith family supplemented its meager farm income by treasure-digging." This is a puzzling statement on a few levels: 1) it states they had meager farm income, 2) this was supplemented by "treasure-digging". 3) there is no reference for this statement and needs to be, 4) They did nothing else, according to the statement for income except treasure digging. 5) How successful was this activity? 6) If their farm income was so meager and this was the only way they supplemented their farm income it must have been pretty successful; how much did they make off of this activity?
This does not read well nor is it factual. They supplemented their farm income by working as day laborers for other farmers among other things. The treasure digging allegation needs to be defined in terms of how much time was used for this activity, how successful they were, and what they found in their digging.
If they were not successful then why would people pay them to search for treasure? -- Storm Rider 12:52, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
It seems that a vast majority of the article is cited with Bushman or Quinn, while the official historical accounts from the journals of Joseph Smith himself and the History of the Church take a back seat and are only mentioned a few times. Bushman's one book is used as a source (around) 223 times out of the 298 citations. Are we just supposed to read Bushman's book and skip the article then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GuntherSWiki ( talk • contribs) 21:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I've noticed that there has been a recent push to include the statement that glass-looking was illegal in New York and specifically that it was illegal "because it was often practiced by swindlers". (See [6] [7] [8]) This bugs me for various reasons, a few of them being:
I'll hold off on reverting at the moment, but I invite further comment on this matter. Thanks, ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 04:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
The random passersby complaining about POV above are doing so because the article doesn't say Smith was "convicted of fraud" (he wasn't as far as I can tell) and trust me, those people will never be satisfied no matter how much "negative POV" is added to the article (the same goes that the people who drop in to complain that the article doesn't call him a "prophet of God" will never be satisfied no matter how much "positive POV" is added).
In the past whenever people have come along insisting that extra but not-completely-related details be included in the article because they are interesting and "reliably sourced" we have usually ended up compromising by putting the details in a footnote like this. I feel that might be a good compromise here, as it will resolve your concern about the inquisitive people who want to know why pretending to find lost treasure was illegal. They can simply check the footnote. The same compromise resolves my concerns about the over-simplification by quoting the actual law, which would be unwieldy in the article text itself. ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 15:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
I was simply blown away by this one-sided, pro-LDS article on Smith. Almost every paragraph is missing other side of the the story, contrary to WP:NPOV. Smith's early treasure-swindling has been glossed over, and the documented conviction for fraud in Chenango County is missing entirely. Polygamy got only a single superficial mention in the main section(!), and the description of Emma Smith's polygamy knowledge is wildly contradictory from section to section. The Egyptian papyrus fraud has been documented by every neutral expert in the field for 100 years, but that fact has been expurgated. Certainly LDS faithful can be forgiven for their prejudice, but any serious non-LDS biographer cites a long pattern of abuse and fraud. No reader of this article will know that. Tomking505 ( talk) 01:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
You are not familiar with a Joseph Smith's fraud conviction? Have you actually looked using a search engine? Fletcherbrian ( talk) 14:14, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
![]() | The
neutrality of this article is
disputed. |
Joseph Smith was a scam artist and con man. Its so obvious today, that it is surprising no mention of it is made in the article. It should of been incredibly obvious in Smith's time as well. Certainly anyone with any common sense would of pegged him as a fraud, a snake oil salesman, and a con man from the very get go... and I'm sure, many did. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.11.248 ( talk) 18:37, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
In the "Early years" section is a paragraph that begins by discussing the Smith family's financial hardship after the death of Alvin. Since mid April there has been a sequence of modifications to that sentence:
Here are the relevant passages from RSR that serve as the supporting source for this part of the article:
Financial pressures increased in 1822 after [Joseph Jr.'s] elder brother, Alvin, began to build a frame house for the family. They managed this extravagant undertaking by making a fatal mistake.... [As] the time for making the next land payment approached, [...] the payment was apparently not applied to the mortgage.
Alvin [...] took responsibility for the "management and control" of construction....
Alvin may have taken the lead because his discouraged father could not. Alvin had cosigned the articles for the land purchase in 1821, suggesting he was serving as auxilary [sic] family head. Joseph Smith Sr., worn down by setbacks, may have partially abdicated family leadership. "I have not always set that example before my family that I ought," he confessed in 1834. Speaking of himself in the third person, he gratefully told Hyrum that "though he has been out of the way through wine, thou hast never forsaken him nor laughed him to scorn." Joseph Sr.'s drinking was not excessive for that time and place; only two of the hostile affidavits collected in 1833 mentioned it. [...] Joseph Sr. had lost his Vermont farm, and a few years later at the age of fifty-four would lose the land they were buying in Manchester. There would be no inheritances for his sons. By the standard measures of success in a rural society, he had failed. Even his dreamy yearning for religion had led to nothing; he felt that he had let his children down.
Bushman, Rough Stone Rolling, p. 42
My take on the above is the following:
Thoughts? alanyst 20:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Adjwilley says in his edit summary here that the treasure hunting expeditions referenced in that sentence, "to western New York and Pennsylvania in 1825–26," were all funded by Stowell. John Foxe says in his edit summary here that Stowell was not Smith's only employer. Are there sources to support the proposition that others besides Stowell employed Joseph Smith in at least one of the treasure hunting expeditions referenced in that sentence? alanyst 22:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There are several problems with this line. First, it's not inclusive enough. It's also been argued that Smith was insane, a sociopath, self-deluded, or an agent of the devil. More importantly, the line is an unnecessary waste of space. We hold this truth to be self-evident that non-believers don't believe. Imagine writing "Christians believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, while critics view him as a false prophet or religious impostor."-- John Foxe ( talk) 20:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to replace the current section which reads
Smith continued to live in Ohio, but visited Missouri again in early 1832 in order to prevent a rebellion of prominent church members, including Cowdery, who believed the church in Missouri was being neglected.<ref>{{Harvtxt|Brodie|1971|pp=119–22}}.</ref> Smith's trip was hastened by a mob of Ohio residents who were incensed over the United Order and Smith's political power; the mob beat Smith and Rigdon unconscious, [[tarring and feathering|tarred and feathered]] them, and left them for dead.<ref>{{Harvtxt|Remini|2002|pp=109–10}}; {{Harvtxt|Brodie|1971|pp=119–20}} (noting that Smith may have narrowly escaped being castrated); {{Harvtxt|Bushman|2005|pp=178–80}}.
with the following:
Smith continued to live in Ohio, but he visited Missouri in early 1832 to prevent a rebellion of prominent church members jealous of Rigdon's influence and annoyed at a revelation from Smith that the Missouri settlement should pay Kirkland's debts.<ref>{{Harvtxt|Brodie|1971|pp=119–22}}.</ref> Smith's trip west was also hastened by a mob of Ohioans who thought Smith was trying to deceive the credulous into joining a tyrannical political and economic system. The mob [[tarring and feathering|tarred and feathered]] Smith and Rigdon and beat them senseless. <ref>{{Harvtxt|Remini|2002|pp=109–10}};{{Harvtxt|Brodie|1971|pp=119–20}} (noting that Smith may have narrowly escaped being castrated); {{Harvtxt|Bushman|2005|pp=178–80}}.
The latter is absolutely faithful to the sources and yet provides both a clearer explanation about why the Ohioans mobbed Smith and places more emphasis on disharmony in the early Church.-- John Foxe ( talk) 20:37, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
@Good Ol'factory, agreed on the castration thing. Brodie also hinted at that, while Bushman cited her, saying that her evidence was weak. ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 23:37, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
I understand the subtle Smith 'claimed' portions are to make it a little more encyclopedic but to me it's like putting "George Washington chopped down a cherry tree, and threw a silver dollar across the Potomac" against his verifiable accomplishments without distinguishing the two. I propose renaming this page to "Mormon beliefs on Joseph Smith" or "Joseph Smith (Character of Mormon Mythology) so as to remove issues with the glaring Mormon POV. 138.210.3.84 ( talk) 22:41, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
I am posting this topic in order to resolve an issue and potentially prevent an edit war. This article claims that Smith published the Book of Mormon. That is categorically false. He directed the publishing of the Book of Mormon. The actual publishing was done by E. B. Grandin. I believe we do the article a great disservice by introducing wording that is blatantly false. But any attempt on my part to introduce more NPOV wording in this regard has resulted in a revert by Good Olfactory. So I thought that rather than engage in an edit war, I would post here in an effort to get some kind of consensus on wording that would be more neutral and accurate and would be satisfactory to both of us. Let me review what has been done so far so that it is not necessary for interested editors to go back in the history.
I really think we need a compromise here. I feel unsettled about claiming that Smith published the Book of Mormon when he actually supervised the publishing of the Book of Mormon. But no matter what wording I use, it gets reverted. I want to avoid an edit war, and I have the greatest respect for Good Olfactory. I believe a compromise can and should be found, so I wanted to post here and see what the consensus says. Thoughts? -- Jgstokes ( talk) 20:03, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
John Foxe made a good faith edit to use careful language regarding Smith's additional wives. I changed this to reflect that sources say he had more than 30 wives in the years after 1841. For example, John Bushman adds no caveats when he writes in Mormonism: A Very Short Introduction, "In 1841, he began to marry additional women until the number grew to more than thirty. (Incomplete records make it impossible to determine an exact number.)" We should be careful about settling on a number beyond 30 in this article, but the sources listed and Bushman seem to be in agreement that he had more than 30 wives in the following years and the text should reflect that. Airborne84 ( talk) 05:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
No issue with that either. It reflects the sources but leaves discussion about a number above 30 in the notes. Airborne84 ( talk) 13:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't have sufficient knowledge to make a correction, but the article (to a lay-person) is confusing in regard to this (reading the article, it gave me a "Huh? Didn't it say something different earlier?" moment when I hit the second quoted text below. I'm wondering if someone should add a clarifying point, maybe to the first section?
Under "Family and Descendants", the article states:
Throughout her life, Emma Smith frequently denied that her husband had ever taken additional wives. Emma said that the very first time she ever became aware of a polygamy revelation being attributed to Smith by Mormons was when she read about it in Orson Pratt's periodical The Seer in 1853. Emma campaigned publicly against polygamy, and was the main signatory of a petition in 1842, with a thousand female signatures, denying that Smith was connected with polygamy. As president of the Ladies' Relief Society, Emma authorized publishing a certificate in the same year denouncing polygamy, and denying her husband as its creator or participant. Even on her deathbed, Emma denied Joseph's involvement with polygamy, stating, "No such thing as polygamy, or spiritual wifery, was taught, publicly or privately, before my husband's death, that I have now, or ever had any knowledge of ... He had no other wife but me; nor did he to my knowledge ever have"
Later, under "Views and Teachings" / "Polygamy", it's stated that:
Polygamy (or plural marriage) caused a breach between Smith and his first wife, Emma. Although Emma knew of some of her husband's marriages, she almost certainly did not know the extent of his polygamous activities. In 1843, Emma temporarily accepted Smith's marriage to four women boarded in the Smith household, but she soon regretted her decision and demanded that the other wives leave. In July, Smith dictated a revelation pressuring Emma to accept plural marriage, but the two were not reconciled until September, after Emma began participating in temple ordinances and received an endowment.
98.203.213.148 ( talk) 16:17, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
There has been some editing and reverting centered around the first sentence that has made me wonder whether an alternate wording might be appropriate. The first sentence currently reads:
Joseph Smith, Jr. (December 23, 1805 – June 27, 1844) was an American religious leader who founded the Latter Day Saint movement, of which the predominant branch is Mormonism.
As I noted in my edit summary here we have this wording (as opposed to just saying that he founded the LDS Church) because there are multiple churches and claims of succession. (See List of sects in the Latter Day Saint movement) However, the current wording bugs me as well, mostly because it's wordy and awkward. I also don't think that Latter Day Saint movement should be the first link in the article, since it's kind of an academic term that's usually not mentioned in the sources (they usually just mention Mormonism or the LDS Church, sometimes in combination with the Community of Christ). Anyway, I think a good replacement wording would be
Joseph Smith, Jr. (December 23, 1805 – June 27, 1844) was an American religious leader and founder of Mormonism.
I like that because it's simple, direct, and still accurate. During his life he was just the founder of Mormonism, and that is what he is most known for; yet the wording doesn't imply that he is not also considered the founder of non-Mormon denominations formed after his death (specifically the CoC). Specific denominations (LDS & CoC) are still mentioned prominently in the last paragraph of the Lead. Thoughts? ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 16:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I posted this topic before, but it has since moved to the archives. I repost it now because it still appears to be an issue. We have several editors with only IP addresses who are overzealous Church members with no regard for Wikipedia policy that are insistent that we stick to what all LDS members accept as truth, that Smith restored the Church that Christ originally established upon this earth. It is to those IP editors I address this comment. Because of Wikipedia rules and regulations about maintaining a neutral point of view, we cannot say that Smith "restored" the Church that Christ originally established, however much we believe or know it to be true. Before you jump all over me, I am LDS as well, and I too believe that Joseph restored Christ's original Church. But as a Wikipedia editor, I have to accept Wikipedia's views about neutrality, and so we can only say that our church "believes itself to be" a restoration of Christ's Church, and we must thus list Smith as the founder of it. In reality, however it came about, whether you believe it was through angelic direction, divine intervention, or a whim of his own, it took someone accepted by the general public as mortal to establish a Church, and that is what Smith did. So, I would say to you anonymous IP address editors who keep insisting that we list Smith as the "restorer" of the Church, please be sure that you are following Wikipedia policy when you make such edits, and please give it some thought before making edits such as these. You can save yourself and others a lot of stress and trouble if you do so. Thanks. -- Jgstokes ( talk) 08:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't know how to make a pending changes protection request. I have made a semi protection request in the past and it has been granted, but I really don't understand the formatting involved and would feel much more comfortable if someone with more Wikipedia experience than me were to take care of it, if we really think it is necessary to go to that length. I'm not convinced that's the way to go. If anonymous IPs are unaware of the talk pages, we need to make them aware of them. I think doing so would be the fair thing to do before requesting page protection. On the other hand, this has been happening a lot more lately, so maybe it's time to act first and consider coddling the IPs later. So, if someone with experience could make the page protection request for us, that would be fantastic! -- Jgstokes ( talk) 05:59, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Since it will no doubt be unwelcome and contentious for some, I'll ask for comments here first. Sam Harris wrote, in his recently published book, Waking Up, that Smith was a "libidinous con man and crackpot". Certainly the sentiment is notable, as other commentators, such as Christopher Hitchens, have expressed the same. However, this idea is not clearly expressed in this article (which may be, at least in part, the source of the repeated assertions of POV for this article). Within Wikipedia's policies, is there any objection to adding this, perhaps in the "legacy" section? Thanks. Airborne84 ( talk) 09:03, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
And if you're simply looking for secondary sources to note that these atheists use these terms, there is no shortage of that online. These comments are noted in a number of news sites online. For example, the " Christian Post" noted Dawkins's use of these terms during Mitt Romney's run for the US presidency. They don't have to be scholarly secondary sources; Wikipedia does not require that to merit inclusion in an article. Perhaps if you could clarify what you are looking for, I can help. Thanks. Airborne84 ( talk) 19:16, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not saying here that we need to take the same approach as Remini, but I do think that it is a good one. When we have a subject area like this (religion) where everybody believes everybody else is wrong, I'm not sure about the merits of repeating the name calling in what is supposed to be a professional encyclopedia. I will however look over the section again and see if I can partially resolve your concerns using the secondary sources that I have at my disposal. ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 01:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)I should make it clear at the outset that I am not a Mormon. As such I faced several problems in writing this book, one of which involved Joseph's visions and revelations, which are crucial to an understanding of him, his church, and the times in which he lived. After considerable thought I decided to present his religious experiences just as he described them in his writings and let readers decide for themselves to what extent they would give credence to them. I am not out to prove or disprove any of his claims. As a historian I have tried to be as objective as possible in narrating his life and work. Mormons will have no problem in believing everything Joseph related about his encounters with the divine. Others may be skeptical, but I hope they will, like me, find his life and legacy of particular importance in better appreciating how this nation developed during the early nineteenth century and how religion played such a commanding role in that process.
(Shrug) You can revert if you'd like. But as written the passage reflects the same sentiments with less appearance of POV. And since this article appears to be the subject of POV claims fairly often, I recommend the current version. However, if the edit actually misrepresents the source, it should not stand. Thanks again. Airborne84 ( talk) 06:03, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
To add context to the age range, I have been in a revert "war", which isn't a war, but folks seem to think it is, so here I am.
In the polygamy section, Emma's reaction is noted. Stepping into her shoes, it would probably be easier to have another wife in the marriage if that woman was my age. Her rejection of polygamy should be obvious when considering the age of Helen Mar Kimball: 14. This information gives great context, and allows the reader to understand why Emma reacted poorly to a God given commandment. Villaged ( talk) 19:38, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Lastly, in case you didn't see the diff, instead of just deleting the wording about Kimball, I moved it to the footnote, since that has often proved to be an acceptable compromise when someone insists on placing undue emphasis on this or that. ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 03:05, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, you're certainly entitled to your own opinion. One thing you should know. Not all people who have commented on this issue believe Smith to be a prophet. This article is contributed to by those who accept him as a prophet, those who believe he was a con man, and everyone in between. To balance the discrepancy, there's a little principle called consensus. This means that no editor or group of editors can put anything in an article contrary to the opinion of the majority. And it appears that the majority opinion in this case is in favor of either not including this fact at all, or, if it is included, to only include it in the footnotes. Sorry if you can't/won't accept that, but that's the way Wikipedia policy works. If you don't like it, you can complain to the admins. But don't expect much sympathy. As long as a consensus decision has been made and is backed up by reliable sources, then the decision will likely stand. Sorry. -- Jgstokes ( talk) 05:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
I pulled out my copy of Bushman tonight and re-read the sections on polygamy. I usually turn to Bushman's book when I'm uncertain of how much weight to give something, because it is pretty much universally accepted as the best biography of Smith. Anyway, Bushman mentions the ages of some of the wives, naming several by name and recounting their stories. He doesn't mention Kimball by name, or give her age in any part of the book. The closest he comes is in a parenthesis on page 492 where he's talking about the initial anguish the women, particularly the younger ones, must have felt. It reads: "(Ten of Joseph's wives were under twenty.)". For a detailed list of the wives, he directs readers to Compton's definitive work on the subject. If the leading 700 page biography on the subject doesn't bother to mention Kimball, why is it so important that we mention her in the corresponding 10 page encyclopedia article? The compromise of linking her in the footnote here is more weight than Bushman gives her in his entire book.
The question nobody has answered is why this is so important. Is it important enough to abandon good encyclopedic writing, to ignore WP:WEIGHT, and to deviate from trying to follow the best reliable sources? Is increasing a "yuck factor" more important than impartial writing and accuracy? Anyway, I have reverted the problematic changes for now, pending further discussion. ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 05:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. I've listed a few notes below:
The Revelations section has the following passage "Smith's first recorded revelation was a rebuke from God for having let Martin Harris lose 116 pages of Book of Mormon manuscript, chastising him for "fearing man more than God".[196] The revelation was given in the voice of God, and Smith, as a speaker, was absent from the revelation." I confess I have no idea what the last sentence means. In what sense was Smith "as a speaker" "absent from the revelation"? It sounds as though he somehow wasn't there when the revelation occurred. Since I'm assuming that the Voice of God was not heard by other people, I don't see how it could be conveyed unless Smith told people about it, so I don't know how he could be "absent" "as a speaker". The only sense I can make of this is that it's saying he heard what he believed was the voice of God, either inside his head or as a voice coming from somewhere. And that this voice was clearly not his own, but felt strongly like something coming from outside himself. Is this what is meant, or is it something else? Paul B ( talk) 16:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Is there consensus for this edit? I've reverted it twice now, and have been reverted twice myself. My problem with it is that it blanks sourced material with no good reason with the effect of implying (incorrectly) that Smith entered into garden-variety polygamous marriages with the wives of other men. This is not true. The source says,
All told, ten of Joseph's plural wives were married to other men. All of them went on living with their first husbands after marrying the Prophet. The reasons for choosing married women can only be surmised. Not all were married to non-Mormon men: six of the then husbands were active Latter-day Saints. In most cases, the husband knew of the plural marriage and approved. The practice seems inexplicable today. Why would a husband consent? Bushman p 439)
Also problematic is the wholesale replacement of "plural marriage" with "polygamous marriage". Plural marriage is a specific subset of polygamy, is the language used in the source, and it's ok to be specific. I don't see it as being particularly confusing: it's pretty clear what the term means. Thoughts on this? ~ Adjwilley ([[User talk:Adjwilley|talk] ]) 03:13, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
To try to avoid edit wars that in the past I have started, I'm starting off with the talk page to talk about my proposal. I have seen the light.
The article states the standard story about the First Vision, however, there are several, other versions that JS is responsible for. The references can be found at the Church's own article on the subject: https://www.lds.org/topics/first-vision-accounts
I'd propose something like: "Over the next twenty years, Smith told several versions of his visitation to resolve his religious confusion. While praying in a wooded area near his home, he said variously that God, Jesus Christ, and/or angels had visited him. In the most popular version of the First Vision, Joseph said that God had told him that his sins were forgiven and that all contemporary churches had "turned aside from the gospel."
This eliminates the "in a vision" piece before God, as that makes it sound like this wasn't something that Smith believe happened to him for real. It also addresses the multiple vision versions. Villaged ( talk) 16:48, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
In several later reminiscences, Smith said that around the time of his early religious uncertainty, a being appeared to him in a vision and forgave him of his sins, and/or told him that all contemporary churches were corrupt. Modern Mormons consider this "First Vision" to be the founding event of Mormonism.
but the two were not reconciled until September, after Emma began participating in temple ordinances and received an endowment.[288] Endowment? By who? God? Is this article suggesting that God influenced her? I think only facts are allowed!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.156.65.14 ( talk) 15:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Joseph Smith was not born in Sharon, Vermont, but closer to the nearby town of South Royalton. Check on Google. ---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.72.241 ( talk) 00:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
The current edit of the Book of Mormon section talks about the use of the seer stones without talking a great deal about the witness statements. While I think the section is worded pretty neutrally, I don't think it does enough to address the logical skepticism a reader would have about the stones. does anyone have any thoughts? Elmmapleoakpine ( talk) 00:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Shouldn't the death of his son go in the article too? Joseph and Emma's firstborn son died on the day of his birth, June 15, 1828, after the incident where Joseph was rebuked for letting Martin Harris take the plates. 97.102.61.193 ( talk) 17:13, 13 August 2015 (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 15 | ← | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 |
I made this chronology to better show the life of Joseph Smith.-- 217.230.255.153 ( talk) 17:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Events in the Life of Joseph Smith | |
---|---|
Important dates and locations in the life of Joseph Smith | |
Dec. 23, 1805 | Joseph Smith, Jr., is born at Sharon, Windsor County, Vermont. |
Spring 1820 | Joseph Smith states that he receives a visitation from two heavenly personages; God the Father and His son Jesus Christ. |
Sept. 21, 1823 | Smith prays and, according to his writings, describes that he is visited three times during the night by an angel named Moroni. Moroni tells him about a hidden book and quotes scriptures from the books of Acts, Joel, Isaiah, and Malachi. |
Sept. 22, 1823 | Smith states that he went to the place where the gold plates are concealed, but is instructed by the angel Moroni not to retrieve them. |
January. 18, 1827 | Smith elopes with Emma Hale in South Bainbridge, New York and they are married by judge "Squire Tarbill" (Zachariah Tarbell) |
Sept. 22, 1827 | Smith states that he receives the gold plates. |
Dec. 1827–Feb. 1828 | Smith describes that he begins translating the gold plates (The Book of Mormon) with Emma and her brother Reuben as scribes. Later scribes included Martin Harris (who lost the 116 pages known as the Book of Lehi) and Oliver Cowdery. |
May 15, 1829 | The conferral of the Aaronic priesthood on Smith and Cowdery is recorded. They received the Melchizedek Priesthood later that month. |
July 1, 1829 | According to David Whitmer, the translation was completed July 1, 1829. Oliver Cowdery copies an entire second manuscript in case of robbery or destruction of the first. |
Aug. 25, 1829 | A contract is drawn up with E.B. Grandin to print 5,000 copies of the book for $3,000. Martin Harris mortgages his farm to Grandin to pay for the printing. |
Mar. 26, 1830 | The Wayne Sentinel announces that the Book of Mormon has been published and advertises its sale. |
Apr. 6, 1830 | The " Church of Jesus Christ" is officially organized in the home of Peter Whitmer, Sr., in Fayette, NY. |
June 9, 1830 | The first General conference of the newly formed Church of Christ was held in Fayette, New York, presided over by Joseph Smith. It included a gathering of the 27 members of the two-month-old church. |
early June 1831 | Smith wrote that "the authority of the Melchizedek priesthood was manifested and conferred for the first time upon several of the Elders" |
Mar. 24, 1832 | Joseph Smith is tarred by a mob. |
Mar. 29, 1832 | Smith's adopted son, Joseph Murdock Smith, dies from a cold caught when he was pulled from Joseph's arms during the mobbing. |
July, 1835 | Smith states that he translated the majority of the Book of Abraham text. |
August 17, 1835 | The Doctrine and Covenants was first introduced to the church body in a general conference. |
March 27, 1836 | The Kirtland Temple was dedicated in an eight-hour service. |
Oct. 27, 1838 | Missouri Governor Lilburn W. Boggs's issues an extermination order against the Mormons. |
Oct. 30, 1838 | A mob of 240 men shoot and kill nearly 20 Latter-day Saints and wound about 15 in an unexpected raid at Jacob Haun's Mill, Caldwell County, Missouri. |
May 9-10, 1839 | Joseph Smith Moves to Nauvoo, Illinois. |
June 1, 1840 | The city of Nauvoo grows to 250 homes |
October 19, 1840 | The practice of baptism for the dead is established. |
March 1, 1842 | The Wentworth letter was first published in the Times and Seasons. |
June 7, 1844 | The Nauvoo Expositor published only one issue. |
June 24-25, 1844 | Joseph Smith and his brother Hyrum Smith leave for Carthage and are arrested for treason by Constable David Bettisworth. |
June 27, 1844 Thursday | Joseph Smith and Hyrum Smith killed by a mob at Carthage Jail, Illinois. [1] |
Because nobody objected the timeline, I add it now again.-- 84.177.226.162 ( talk) 15:31, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I deleted the Civil War prophecy and inserted instead the Kirtland Temple.-- 84.177.250.228 ( talk) 18:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
I added three more items but I think we should improve this timeline together, so please contribute to the timeline.-- 87.163.252.108 ( talk) 16:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I added now the improved timeline.-- 217.230.233.146 ( talk) 11:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
I CREATED THIS WHOLE TIMELINE. SO PLEASE DISCUSS IT NOW!-- 217.230.233.146 ( talk) 14:15, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
I apologice for my shouting. But please discuss this timeline and do not move to some other topics.-- 217.230.243.50 ( talk) 16:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
My entire work was for nothing. You can still discuss this timeline. But I have abandoned the discussion-- 217.230.243.50 ( talk) 18:45, 12 March 2012 (UTC).
I am very sad right now. I thought this timeline was a great idea.-- 217.230.243.50 ( talk) 18:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
It seems here on wikipedia a race is going to shut down Mormonism whereby the competitors have effectively being banned. It seems to be a consensus that "Mormon POV is biased" and should not be tolerated. That is not, justified. Why? The same logic as what John Foxe is using would imply:
And so forth. Every argument has two sides and the rationale seems to be here that all LDS claims ought to be automatically dismissed at the word go because "they are LDS". You can't have it both ways, at the end of the day LDS scholarship counts as much as any other form of scholarship too, to say only Mormons can be biased is insane. Who's to say there is no bias behind the critical scholars then? Of course, Foxe is happy to degrade any LDS-scholar to an "Apologist". These tactics are unfair, unjustified and a crime against the liberal editing platform of this website. Tolerate mormon claims and opinions, please. -- 202.74.162.183 ( talk) 06:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I've added a verify credibility tag to the Quinn (1994) reference that claims the text was conveyed by Smith to Rigdon's 19-year-old daughter, since the source (attributed to Mormonism critic D. Michael Quinn) is biased, and since it does not jive with what is recorded in the History of the Church (HC; online here), Vol. 5, p.134-136.
My concerns are: (a) HC does not indicate this text was transmitted in a letter to Rigdon's daughter; in fact, it appears to be a discourse from Smith titled Happiness. (b) There is also a small difference (in bold) below, and crucial context is missing.
Quinn: "that which is wrong under one circumstance, may be and often is, right under another. God said thou shalt not kill—at another time he said thou shalt utterly destroy. This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted—by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the elders of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right...even things which may be considered abominable to all those who do not understand the order of heaven."
Smith (HC):
"Happiness is the object and design of our existence; and will be the end thereof, if we pursue the path that leads to it; and this path is virtue, uprightness, faithfulness, holiness, and keeping all the commandments of God. But we cannot keep all the commandments without first knowing them, and we cannot expect to know all, or more than we now know unless we comply with or keep those we have already received. That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another. God said, "Thou shalt not kill;" at another time He said "Thou shalt utterly destroy." This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted--by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire. If we seek first the kingdom of God, all good things will be added. So with Solomon: first he asked wisdom, and God gave it him, and with it every desire of his heart, even things which might be considered abominable to all who understand the order of heaven only in part, but which in reality were right because God gave and sanctioned by special revelation."Are there any reliable sources that indicate the text was in fact conveyed to Rigdon's daughter in the circumstances described by Quinn? If not, the text (which is supported by both sources) can stay, but the story about the polygamous proposal should be removed from the footnote. Regards — Eustress talk 06:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
When the article mentions Smith's childhood illness, it says that it occurred when Smith was eight. However, according to "Church History in the Fulness of Times," pg. 23, it states that Smith was seven, or in his eighth year. I think some consensus ought to be reached about this. A minor point, to be sure, but still important. I believe I saw a source in the article for the claim that he was eight, but now we have this other source that says he was seven. What should be done about this? -- Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable ( talk) 14:20, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to merge the section on "Ethics and behavior" with the "Legacy" section that immediately follows it. Here's my reasoning: The Ethics section is currently very short, and in a nutshell says that Smith believed earthly law was superseded by revelation. The Legacy section gives several contrasting views of Smith from the point of view of Evangelical Christians (liar or lunatic), Mormons (prophet and "choice seer"), and people in his day (fraud, etc.). I would like to modify the section to reflect some of the scholarly views I've found, like the complex but impetuous religious thinker (Bushman), the "pious deceiver" (Vogel), and the opportunist (Brodie). I'd like to start the section stating that it's unlikely that there will ever be consensus on Smith's character and achievements, but then give some of the contrasting views. The "Ethics" are closely tied to the character, so that material shouldn't be hard to work in. Thoughts? ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 21:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
I realized today as I was working on the draft that the two sections are going to be harder to merge than I thought. I was at a point where I had footnoted most of the "ethics" material, and it still wasn't fitting quite right. I think the ethics material is important, so I've decided not to try to merge the sections. I've done a lot of work on the "Legacy" section, though, and I'd still like to rework some of that in the article. I also think the subsection heading "Ethics and behavior" should be changed to "Ethics." The section doesn't talk a whole lot about behavior, and it's under the section of "Distinctive views and teachings" and "behavior" isn't really a teaching or a view. ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 16:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
There have been some recent edits ( [1], [2]) that challenge the statement that historians view Smith as one of the most charismatic and inventive figures in American religious history. It seems User:Cush's view is that only Mormons view him as such, while real "mainstream" historians view Smith as a "fraud, con-man, and religious nutjob". This goes contrary to what I've read in the sources, where no matter what the author's take on Smith, they almost always acknowledge his genius/charisma/importance/impact. Take, for instance, the following non-Mormon historians (who, I'd guess, many Mormons would call "anti-Mormon"):
Additionally, the view that Smith was a creative genius should not be ascribed to his followers, particularly since many would see such a view as undermining their belief (that the Book of Mormon was a translation, not a composition). ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 18:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
The lead is currently too long, as Adjwilley pointed out, and I wanted to have a discussion of how to best shorten it. I haven't read through it in a while, and I think that has let me see it with fresh eyes. I think the main problem with it is that it has too much granular detail on Smith's history, and not enough broad perspective. It is a "can't see the forest for the trees" introduction, and it focuses too much on the church, rather than Smith himself. There are certain details that are not that important. I don't think we need to name his parents, for example. The main points I think we do need to hit, at least briefly, are as follows:
I also want to frame all this in terms of Smith personally, rather than Mormons as a whole. I know this is a tall order to do this in 3-4 paragraphs, but I don't see why it can't be done. COGDEN 21:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Why is this important period in Smith's early life breezed over with one clause on Folk religion. Certainly his conviction in New York for being an imposter is notable. — GabeMc ( talk) 02:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Excerpt "After being arrested for defrauding his clients, Joseph Smith Jr. found a set of golden plates in a hillside in Manchester, New York (others were not allowed to see them), which revealed to him (in a language only he could read) that Jesus would return to Independence, Missouri."
99.119.128.213 ( talk) 03:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
This article is so obviously massaged and managed by LDS zealots that people coming here to learn about this man are only going to get this carefully sanitized end-run of the truth. Clearly, it doesn't matter what source is used that frankly discusses the ridiculous impossibility of this charlatan's fabricated tales, it won't be allowed to stand in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.232.74.109 ( talk) 20:36, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
The first sentence does not mention that Joseph Smith, Jr, started The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It mentions Mormonism and Latter Day Saint movement, neither of which is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, (LDS Church). — Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 15:13, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
For those not familiar with the history here, there was a long argument over this (preserved in Archive 20) that eventually resulted in my making this edit as a compromise between myself and John Foxe. The paragraph has been fairly stable since then, though several footnotes were cropped out at one point. Anyway, a recent publication brought the fact to my attention that a key source is being quoted incorrectly. Currently the footnote reads,
What Allen actually says is,
Allen explicitly refutes the idea being attributed to him here at least twice more in the course of the article. Anyway, I'm not sure where the misunderstanding/confusion happened, but because it figured so prominently into the compromise, I'm in effect reneging on that, and restoring the earlier version (with a couple tweaks). As always, if anybody disagrees, feel free to revert and discuss, or simply discuss. ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 17:55, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
User:Arrivisto has made a few edits to the article recently, most of which I have reverted. The first edit (3 days ago) had several problems that I indicated in my edit summary. [5] The second string of edits had various problems with Weight and NPOV, and moved information around in a way that made it hard to see what exactly was changed. (I did notice that the "alleged" was removed in "alleged treason".) Anyway, I reverted those edits too, but fixed a couple problems that had been pointed out, and added a bit about Dawkins et al dismissing Smith as a charlatan.
Anyway I figured I'd start a section here on the talk page where these edits can be discussed. ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 15:41, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
I feel like I should further explain my rational for reverting this recent edit to the Lead. The main problem is that it's just not that black and white. Yes, plenty of people think he was a fraud, but the actual scholars and historians who have studied him would never make a statement like that. But before I get too far, let me outline the premises I'm basing my arguments on.
Ok. Now let's take the phrase "critics regard him as a fraud and mountebank." Does that make Smith notable? I would argue no. If being regarded as a fraud and mountebank made someone notable than every self-proclaimed prophet and crank would get their own Wikipedia article. What makes Smith notable is that he started a major religion that survived his death; he's not notable because people think he's a fraud.
Now back to the scholars. There are many scholars–Mormon and non-Mormon–who have written about Smith. (Recent ones have done some really excellent work.) But regardless of the scholars' religion or point of view, they stop short of calling him an outright fraud. For instance, Dan Vogel, an ex-Mormon, calls Smith a "pious fraud" or somebody who deceives in God's name because they feel called to do so for a good purpose. That's much more nuanced than "fraud and mountebank". Anyway, if you disagree with my logic or my premises, I'd be happy to discuss it further. ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 21:24, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
None of this changes the fact that he irrefutably was convicted of fraud 70.104.193.137 ( talk) 03:14, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
It has been a while since I read through the lead, and I think we are very close to getting it just about perfect. And I know it has been pretty stable for quite a long time. On the micro-level, it is great. But after reading it through it with fresh eyes, I am beginning to see that perhaps the third paragraph is a little problematic.
That one paragraph has an incredible amount of history, from 1831 to 1844, and it seems to just pack everything in like a sardine can. It does this very efficiently and remarkably evenhandedly, and I hate to undo all the work we have put into it, but I think it's just too much. Plus, it is focused more on the church than upon Smith himself.
Are we trying to do too much in the third paragraph? What if we just zoomed out a little bit and used a bigger-picture approach to the 1831-44 era? I'm not sure I have the answers on how to do this, but here is a very rough suggestion that illustrates sort of what I'm thinking:
COGDEN 02:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Impressing article, have some comments/questions. I will follow this article for some time, as the Norwegian article on same topic need some improvements. Is it some reason to why the sentence "Smith's role in the Latter Day Saint religion was comparable to that of Muhammad in early Islam" is using was, and not is?
And reference 428, Bushman, lacks page reference, or is "xx" correct page reference? Grrahnbahr ( talk) 13:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
"xx" is the correct page number. (It's in the Preface.) ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 14:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Shii ( talk · contribs) 07:15, 25 October 2012 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Greetings editors. Just a request if a couple of you could come over to the Emma Smith page and assist. An editor keeps insisting that in 1838 the name of the church was changed to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, citing the current LDS D&C as the reference. I pointed out that the name as adopted in 1838 was actually the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and that the addition of the capitalized 'The' and use of 'Latter-day' did not occur until several years later by the church in Utah. Of course I added a couple of refs to support this fact. Best, A Sniper ( talk) 03:49, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't see any mention of the well documented plurality of Smith's forced underage mariages, both to himself and others, constituting rape, statutory rape and accomplice to rape of a minor. We see contemporarily that the FLDS, namely Warren Jeffs, an adherent to Smith's teachings, charged and convicted of these very crimes. It is noteworthy and biographical. For a change someone with a NPOV and not someone who has 30+ or 300+ contextual edits on this page and related wikis tackle this with the excellent documentation that exists. Thanks! 76.106.2.110 ( talk) 07:08, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Most Latter Day Saint people, (not just LDS Church Members) use the Template:Infobox Latter Day Saint biography and Joseph Smith has Template:Latter Day Saint biography/Joseph Smith. therfore the template used on this page, Template:LDSInfobox/JS could could be merged very quickly into Template:Latter Day Saint biography/Joseph Smith. It would end up looking like this:
{{ LDSInfobox/JS}} |
{{ Latter Day Saint biography/Joseph Smith}} |
I think the change would be good, so that this pages infobox would expand and change just along with all the other lists that include Joseph Smith, which attach threw the Template:Infobox Latter Day Saint biography setup. However, whenever someone edits Joseph Smith there is a huge issue, so I tend to avoid it as much as possible. So if no one thinks it's a good idea, I wont make the change.-- ARTEST4ECHO ( talk/ contribs) 17:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
It is clear that Smith is a polarizing figure. He is either unquestioningly accepted by the LDS faithful as a prophet, or he is branded a con man by detractors. To ignore these questions, as this article largely does, is a great disservice to the reader. This is a theme that needs exploration in ANY article about Smith, and is not really covered here. Criticisms and questions regarding Smith's status as a true prophet of God strike at the very heart of LDS belief, and there have been many, on their face, seemingly reasonable objections to that status. 68.46.132.39 ( talk) 02:06, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Jessethearies, welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy your time here. I hope you don't take this personally, or as a sign of bad faith on the part of pro-Smith Mormon apologetics, but I'm debating removing your recent edits, for the simple fact that those are block quotations from later Mormon leaders, and there is no real evidence (of which I'm aware) that Smith ever taught those things himself.
Care to discuss? — Trevdna ( talk) 17:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't mean to edit and log out, but I had an emergency to attend to. Here is an article by Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research about the status of Joseph Smith in LDS belief. FAIR is a non-profit organization formed for the purpose of defending the Church. I don't mind where the information is put I just hope it gets out there for people to investigate.
http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Status_in_LDS_belief — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.199.138.131 ( talk) 10:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Again i'm sorry I didn't know I was still logged out. Is there any way that my I.P. address can be taken down from the posts where I was logged out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessethearies ( talk • contribs) 10:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Both FAC reviewers so far have mentioned the overcitation in this article. I'd like to look for consensus here on the talk page before slashing and burning them - especially since I wasn't present for much of the POV warring that led to them, so I'm not as familiar with which ones are useful, and which ones are just left-overs. What would be the best way to reduce the overcitation?
I'm thinking, to begin with, that we eliminate all (or most) mid-sentence citations, and merge them with their citations that appear at the end of the sentence. Also, we could be much more selective on which long blockquotes we include in the citations themselves, or pare down lengthy blockquotes into shorter snippets.
Thoughts? Ideas? - Trevdna ( talk) 19:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
I should probably provide an explanation for this edit. Initially I thought sourcing it would be easy, since sources already exist in the article saying the same things. I realized, however, that the two paragraphs are very redundant with the other stuff. The first paragraph (Smith was innovative and divisive) is redundant with the 2nd paragraph in the "Impact" section. The second paragraph about Smith's teachings evolving from temporal to spiritual is redundant with the last paragraph in the "Other revelations" subsection immediately above. Anyway, that's the reason I ended up just blanking it. ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 23:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
There seems to be some disagreement over whether Smith used one or two stones to dictate the Book of Mormon, how to present this in an image caption, and how specific the wording should be. I am currently supporting a wording saying that according to some accounts he used the the single brown stone for much of it. (I want the more general wording to reflect disagreement I've found in the sources.) User:Canstusdis seems to support a wording that drops all reference to the U&T and implies that only the single brown stone was used. I guess the question I have is, why is this such a big deal? It wasn't a big deal to Joseph Smith, who used the two interchangeably. It wasn't a big deal to the scribes or his followers, some of whom took to calling other stones urim and thummims. It isn't a big deal to most of the biographers, none of whom make a statement as direct as the one Canstusdis seems to be trying to be putting in the caption (perhaps a sign of WP:OR). It's not a big deal to Mormons...whether one stone or two stones were used, they still think the Book of Mormon was inspired. And it's not a big deal to non-Mormons...who cares if any stones were used at all: the Book of Mormon was a fabrication, and it was probably a manuscript in the hat anyway. So the question remains, why is this such a big deal, why is is so important, and why does this need to be highlighted in an image caption? ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 23:49, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
OK, I can understand removing the painting of Carthage Jail, since it's based on a description of events that may or may not have actually happened. I'll try to get a picture of the actual jail here when I have more time. (I'm sure there's one we could use at Carthage Jail. But I only have a few minutes.) However, I think the image of the golden plates is worth keeping in the article, because it's a representation of an artifact of such critical importance to Smith's life. Whether they were real or not is subject to debate, of course, so the caption to the plates could and probably should be reworded to reflect that. But you can't have an article about Joseph Smith without the Book of Mormon, and you can't talk about the Book of Mormon without the golden plates. It's a critical thing to illustrate how they looked / how Smith claimed they looked.
Thoughts? Trevdna ( talk) 16:18, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Let the record show that I'm bowing out of this conversation here. You two seem like you've got a better handle on how you'd like to see the article than I do at this point. Trevdna ( talk) 21:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Notice that I'm still the last one to comment here. Not sure why Adjwilley hasn't replied. I suppose he'd like for me to build consensus by myself? Canstusdis ( talk) 23:58, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
@ Canstusdis - if you still have overall concerns about the picture being misleading, you might consider editing the caption in some way. I don't have anything particular in mind - it might end up being too awkward to try to include a disclaimer like that in a caption, but it's an idea.
Also, I'm going to try to find another suitable picture for Carthage Jail somewhere online (when I get the chance), because truthfully I can't stand the one we put up - it's low-res and black and white. Blech. As I understand it, for a new image to gain consensus, it must
Am I leaving anything out? Trevdna ( talk) 23:18, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay on this - real life (and poor time management on my part) is keeping me from working on much of anything Wiki-related and may continue to do so for a while longer. Classes just started for me. Don't count on me too much for much of anything around here for a while. Trevdna ( talk) 18:59, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
The just-completed FAC seems to have brought up a lot of issues that I hadn't honestly considered. School really chose a bad time to pull me away from dedicating time to this article, because I feel that this article was really close, and for the most part, really only needed some fine tuning. (I'm actually a little frustrated, because I would have liked to dispute a few of the objections that were raised, that I felt weren't really warranted. But such is life.)
Having said that, I think it would be appropriate to put up a to-do list, based on the FAC:
Also, reading through the article, I'm noticing the following:
<delete>* "Soon after Smith and Rigdon arrived at Far West, hundreds of disaffected Latter Day Saints who had remained in Kirtland followed them to Missouri." is confusing; if they were disaffected, why did they come back? (The citation clears it up a bit, but the article is still confusing.)</delete>
Looking through the article on POV concerns:
Trevdna ( talk) 21:53, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, I've done quite a bit of work on it, and it seems more clear. The only problem is, I've expanded it greatly, and now I feel like the section as a whole is given undue weight: even though it was a really controversial time of Smith's life, it was less than two years. So, if someone else has ideas on how to shorten it (without sacrificing clarity or NPOV), that would be great. I'd kind of prefer that anyone who takes it on, try to merge the removed material into the relevant subarticle(s), since I have worked hard on it. But if not, that's OK too, I suppose. I mean, my real goal right now is FA status for the main article, not so much with the subarticles. (Yet?)
And if no one works on it for a while, I might just jump back in myself at a later date. Trevdna ( talk) 18:33, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
The lede says: "Smith is widely regarded as one of the most influential, charismatic, innovative, and controversial figures in American religious history"
That is not only very subjective, without implying any objective information, which is contrary to WP policies, but also it clearly consists of adjectives that classify as WP:PEA and also WP:LABEL. I had removed that phrase and was reverted by someone who said they are present on the section "impact" and are referenced. But my point is, even if they are referenced, I don't think it justifies them to be on the article, being highly subjective judgmental remarks without implying any objective information. I think it's at the very least, against the style of Wikipedia. GreyWinterOwl ( talk) 16:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
One of the paragraphs begins as follows: "The Smith family supplemented its meager farm income by treasure-digging." This is a puzzling statement on a few levels: 1) it states they had meager farm income, 2) this was supplemented by "treasure-digging". 3) there is no reference for this statement and needs to be, 4) They did nothing else, according to the statement for income except treasure digging. 5) How successful was this activity? 6) If their farm income was so meager and this was the only way they supplemented their farm income it must have been pretty successful; how much did they make off of this activity?
This does not read well nor is it factual. They supplemented their farm income by working as day laborers for other farmers among other things. The treasure digging allegation needs to be defined in terms of how much time was used for this activity, how successful they were, and what they found in their digging.
If they were not successful then why would people pay them to search for treasure? -- Storm Rider 12:52, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
It seems that a vast majority of the article is cited with Bushman or Quinn, while the official historical accounts from the journals of Joseph Smith himself and the History of the Church take a back seat and are only mentioned a few times. Bushman's one book is used as a source (around) 223 times out of the 298 citations. Are we just supposed to read Bushman's book and skip the article then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GuntherSWiki ( talk • contribs) 21:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I've noticed that there has been a recent push to include the statement that glass-looking was illegal in New York and specifically that it was illegal "because it was often practiced by swindlers". (See [6] [7] [8]) This bugs me for various reasons, a few of them being:
I'll hold off on reverting at the moment, but I invite further comment on this matter. Thanks, ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 04:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
The random passersby complaining about POV above are doing so because the article doesn't say Smith was "convicted of fraud" (he wasn't as far as I can tell) and trust me, those people will never be satisfied no matter how much "negative POV" is added to the article (the same goes that the people who drop in to complain that the article doesn't call him a "prophet of God" will never be satisfied no matter how much "positive POV" is added).
In the past whenever people have come along insisting that extra but not-completely-related details be included in the article because they are interesting and "reliably sourced" we have usually ended up compromising by putting the details in a footnote like this. I feel that might be a good compromise here, as it will resolve your concern about the inquisitive people who want to know why pretending to find lost treasure was illegal. They can simply check the footnote. The same compromise resolves my concerns about the over-simplification by quoting the actual law, which would be unwieldy in the article text itself. ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 15:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
I was simply blown away by this one-sided, pro-LDS article on Smith. Almost every paragraph is missing other side of the the story, contrary to WP:NPOV. Smith's early treasure-swindling has been glossed over, and the documented conviction for fraud in Chenango County is missing entirely. Polygamy got only a single superficial mention in the main section(!), and the description of Emma Smith's polygamy knowledge is wildly contradictory from section to section. The Egyptian papyrus fraud has been documented by every neutral expert in the field for 100 years, but that fact has been expurgated. Certainly LDS faithful can be forgiven for their prejudice, but any serious non-LDS biographer cites a long pattern of abuse and fraud. No reader of this article will know that. Tomking505 ( talk) 01:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
You are not familiar with a Joseph Smith's fraud conviction? Have you actually looked using a search engine? Fletcherbrian ( talk) 14:14, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
![]() | The
neutrality of this article is
disputed. |
Joseph Smith was a scam artist and con man. Its so obvious today, that it is surprising no mention of it is made in the article. It should of been incredibly obvious in Smith's time as well. Certainly anyone with any common sense would of pegged him as a fraud, a snake oil salesman, and a con man from the very get go... and I'm sure, many did. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.11.248 ( talk) 18:37, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
In the "Early years" section is a paragraph that begins by discussing the Smith family's financial hardship after the death of Alvin. Since mid April there has been a sequence of modifications to that sentence:
Here are the relevant passages from RSR that serve as the supporting source for this part of the article:
Financial pressures increased in 1822 after [Joseph Jr.'s] elder brother, Alvin, began to build a frame house for the family. They managed this extravagant undertaking by making a fatal mistake.... [As] the time for making the next land payment approached, [...] the payment was apparently not applied to the mortgage.
Alvin [...] took responsibility for the "management and control" of construction....
Alvin may have taken the lead because his discouraged father could not. Alvin had cosigned the articles for the land purchase in 1821, suggesting he was serving as auxilary [sic] family head. Joseph Smith Sr., worn down by setbacks, may have partially abdicated family leadership. "I have not always set that example before my family that I ought," he confessed in 1834. Speaking of himself in the third person, he gratefully told Hyrum that "though he has been out of the way through wine, thou hast never forsaken him nor laughed him to scorn." Joseph Sr.'s drinking was not excessive for that time and place; only two of the hostile affidavits collected in 1833 mentioned it. [...] Joseph Sr. had lost his Vermont farm, and a few years later at the age of fifty-four would lose the land they were buying in Manchester. There would be no inheritances for his sons. By the standard measures of success in a rural society, he had failed. Even his dreamy yearning for religion had led to nothing; he felt that he had let his children down.
Bushman, Rough Stone Rolling, p. 42
My take on the above is the following:
Thoughts? alanyst 20:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Adjwilley says in his edit summary here that the treasure hunting expeditions referenced in that sentence, "to western New York and Pennsylvania in 1825–26," were all funded by Stowell. John Foxe says in his edit summary here that Stowell was not Smith's only employer. Are there sources to support the proposition that others besides Stowell employed Joseph Smith in at least one of the treasure hunting expeditions referenced in that sentence? alanyst 22:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There are several problems with this line. First, it's not inclusive enough. It's also been argued that Smith was insane, a sociopath, self-deluded, or an agent of the devil. More importantly, the line is an unnecessary waste of space. We hold this truth to be self-evident that non-believers don't believe. Imagine writing "Christians believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, while critics view him as a false prophet or religious impostor."-- John Foxe ( talk) 20:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to replace the current section which reads
Smith continued to live in Ohio, but visited Missouri again in early 1832 in order to prevent a rebellion of prominent church members, including Cowdery, who believed the church in Missouri was being neglected.<ref>{{Harvtxt|Brodie|1971|pp=119–22}}.</ref> Smith's trip was hastened by a mob of Ohio residents who were incensed over the United Order and Smith's political power; the mob beat Smith and Rigdon unconscious, [[tarring and feathering|tarred and feathered]] them, and left them for dead.<ref>{{Harvtxt|Remini|2002|pp=109–10}}; {{Harvtxt|Brodie|1971|pp=119–20}} (noting that Smith may have narrowly escaped being castrated); {{Harvtxt|Bushman|2005|pp=178–80}}.
with the following:
Smith continued to live in Ohio, but he visited Missouri in early 1832 to prevent a rebellion of prominent church members jealous of Rigdon's influence and annoyed at a revelation from Smith that the Missouri settlement should pay Kirkland's debts.<ref>{{Harvtxt|Brodie|1971|pp=119–22}}.</ref> Smith's trip west was also hastened by a mob of Ohioans who thought Smith was trying to deceive the credulous into joining a tyrannical political and economic system. The mob [[tarring and feathering|tarred and feathered]] Smith and Rigdon and beat them senseless. <ref>{{Harvtxt|Remini|2002|pp=109–10}};{{Harvtxt|Brodie|1971|pp=119–20}} (noting that Smith may have narrowly escaped being castrated); {{Harvtxt|Bushman|2005|pp=178–80}}.
The latter is absolutely faithful to the sources and yet provides both a clearer explanation about why the Ohioans mobbed Smith and places more emphasis on disharmony in the early Church.-- John Foxe ( talk) 20:37, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
@Good Ol'factory, agreed on the castration thing. Brodie also hinted at that, while Bushman cited her, saying that her evidence was weak. ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 23:37, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
I understand the subtle Smith 'claimed' portions are to make it a little more encyclopedic but to me it's like putting "George Washington chopped down a cherry tree, and threw a silver dollar across the Potomac" against his verifiable accomplishments without distinguishing the two. I propose renaming this page to "Mormon beliefs on Joseph Smith" or "Joseph Smith (Character of Mormon Mythology) so as to remove issues with the glaring Mormon POV. 138.210.3.84 ( talk) 22:41, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
I am posting this topic in order to resolve an issue and potentially prevent an edit war. This article claims that Smith published the Book of Mormon. That is categorically false. He directed the publishing of the Book of Mormon. The actual publishing was done by E. B. Grandin. I believe we do the article a great disservice by introducing wording that is blatantly false. But any attempt on my part to introduce more NPOV wording in this regard has resulted in a revert by Good Olfactory. So I thought that rather than engage in an edit war, I would post here in an effort to get some kind of consensus on wording that would be more neutral and accurate and would be satisfactory to both of us. Let me review what has been done so far so that it is not necessary for interested editors to go back in the history.
I really think we need a compromise here. I feel unsettled about claiming that Smith published the Book of Mormon when he actually supervised the publishing of the Book of Mormon. But no matter what wording I use, it gets reverted. I want to avoid an edit war, and I have the greatest respect for Good Olfactory. I believe a compromise can and should be found, so I wanted to post here and see what the consensus says. Thoughts? -- Jgstokes ( talk) 20:03, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
John Foxe made a good faith edit to use careful language regarding Smith's additional wives. I changed this to reflect that sources say he had more than 30 wives in the years after 1841. For example, John Bushman adds no caveats when he writes in Mormonism: A Very Short Introduction, "In 1841, he began to marry additional women until the number grew to more than thirty. (Incomplete records make it impossible to determine an exact number.)" We should be careful about settling on a number beyond 30 in this article, but the sources listed and Bushman seem to be in agreement that he had more than 30 wives in the following years and the text should reflect that. Airborne84 ( talk) 05:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
No issue with that either. It reflects the sources but leaves discussion about a number above 30 in the notes. Airborne84 ( talk) 13:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't have sufficient knowledge to make a correction, but the article (to a lay-person) is confusing in regard to this (reading the article, it gave me a "Huh? Didn't it say something different earlier?" moment when I hit the second quoted text below. I'm wondering if someone should add a clarifying point, maybe to the first section?
Under "Family and Descendants", the article states:
Throughout her life, Emma Smith frequently denied that her husband had ever taken additional wives. Emma said that the very first time she ever became aware of a polygamy revelation being attributed to Smith by Mormons was when she read about it in Orson Pratt's periodical The Seer in 1853. Emma campaigned publicly against polygamy, and was the main signatory of a petition in 1842, with a thousand female signatures, denying that Smith was connected with polygamy. As president of the Ladies' Relief Society, Emma authorized publishing a certificate in the same year denouncing polygamy, and denying her husband as its creator or participant. Even on her deathbed, Emma denied Joseph's involvement with polygamy, stating, "No such thing as polygamy, or spiritual wifery, was taught, publicly or privately, before my husband's death, that I have now, or ever had any knowledge of ... He had no other wife but me; nor did he to my knowledge ever have"
Later, under "Views and Teachings" / "Polygamy", it's stated that:
Polygamy (or plural marriage) caused a breach between Smith and his first wife, Emma. Although Emma knew of some of her husband's marriages, she almost certainly did not know the extent of his polygamous activities. In 1843, Emma temporarily accepted Smith's marriage to four women boarded in the Smith household, but she soon regretted her decision and demanded that the other wives leave. In July, Smith dictated a revelation pressuring Emma to accept plural marriage, but the two were not reconciled until September, after Emma began participating in temple ordinances and received an endowment.
98.203.213.148 ( talk) 16:17, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
There has been some editing and reverting centered around the first sentence that has made me wonder whether an alternate wording might be appropriate. The first sentence currently reads:
Joseph Smith, Jr. (December 23, 1805 – June 27, 1844) was an American religious leader who founded the Latter Day Saint movement, of which the predominant branch is Mormonism.
As I noted in my edit summary here we have this wording (as opposed to just saying that he founded the LDS Church) because there are multiple churches and claims of succession. (See List of sects in the Latter Day Saint movement) However, the current wording bugs me as well, mostly because it's wordy and awkward. I also don't think that Latter Day Saint movement should be the first link in the article, since it's kind of an academic term that's usually not mentioned in the sources (they usually just mention Mormonism or the LDS Church, sometimes in combination with the Community of Christ). Anyway, I think a good replacement wording would be
Joseph Smith, Jr. (December 23, 1805 – June 27, 1844) was an American religious leader and founder of Mormonism.
I like that because it's simple, direct, and still accurate. During his life he was just the founder of Mormonism, and that is what he is most known for; yet the wording doesn't imply that he is not also considered the founder of non-Mormon denominations formed after his death (specifically the CoC). Specific denominations (LDS & CoC) are still mentioned prominently in the last paragraph of the Lead. Thoughts? ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 16:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I posted this topic before, but it has since moved to the archives. I repost it now because it still appears to be an issue. We have several editors with only IP addresses who are overzealous Church members with no regard for Wikipedia policy that are insistent that we stick to what all LDS members accept as truth, that Smith restored the Church that Christ originally established upon this earth. It is to those IP editors I address this comment. Because of Wikipedia rules and regulations about maintaining a neutral point of view, we cannot say that Smith "restored" the Church that Christ originally established, however much we believe or know it to be true. Before you jump all over me, I am LDS as well, and I too believe that Joseph restored Christ's original Church. But as a Wikipedia editor, I have to accept Wikipedia's views about neutrality, and so we can only say that our church "believes itself to be" a restoration of Christ's Church, and we must thus list Smith as the founder of it. In reality, however it came about, whether you believe it was through angelic direction, divine intervention, or a whim of his own, it took someone accepted by the general public as mortal to establish a Church, and that is what Smith did. So, I would say to you anonymous IP address editors who keep insisting that we list Smith as the "restorer" of the Church, please be sure that you are following Wikipedia policy when you make such edits, and please give it some thought before making edits such as these. You can save yourself and others a lot of stress and trouble if you do so. Thanks. -- Jgstokes ( talk) 08:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't know how to make a pending changes protection request. I have made a semi protection request in the past and it has been granted, but I really don't understand the formatting involved and would feel much more comfortable if someone with more Wikipedia experience than me were to take care of it, if we really think it is necessary to go to that length. I'm not convinced that's the way to go. If anonymous IPs are unaware of the talk pages, we need to make them aware of them. I think doing so would be the fair thing to do before requesting page protection. On the other hand, this has been happening a lot more lately, so maybe it's time to act first and consider coddling the IPs later. So, if someone with experience could make the page protection request for us, that would be fantastic! -- Jgstokes ( talk) 05:59, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Since it will no doubt be unwelcome and contentious for some, I'll ask for comments here first. Sam Harris wrote, in his recently published book, Waking Up, that Smith was a "libidinous con man and crackpot". Certainly the sentiment is notable, as other commentators, such as Christopher Hitchens, have expressed the same. However, this idea is not clearly expressed in this article (which may be, at least in part, the source of the repeated assertions of POV for this article). Within Wikipedia's policies, is there any objection to adding this, perhaps in the "legacy" section? Thanks. Airborne84 ( talk) 09:03, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
And if you're simply looking for secondary sources to note that these atheists use these terms, there is no shortage of that online. These comments are noted in a number of news sites online. For example, the " Christian Post" noted Dawkins's use of these terms during Mitt Romney's run for the US presidency. They don't have to be scholarly secondary sources; Wikipedia does not require that to merit inclusion in an article. Perhaps if you could clarify what you are looking for, I can help. Thanks. Airborne84 ( talk) 19:16, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not saying here that we need to take the same approach as Remini, but I do think that it is a good one. When we have a subject area like this (religion) where everybody believes everybody else is wrong, I'm not sure about the merits of repeating the name calling in what is supposed to be a professional encyclopedia. I will however look over the section again and see if I can partially resolve your concerns using the secondary sources that I have at my disposal. ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 01:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)I should make it clear at the outset that I am not a Mormon. As such I faced several problems in writing this book, one of which involved Joseph's visions and revelations, which are crucial to an understanding of him, his church, and the times in which he lived. After considerable thought I decided to present his religious experiences just as he described them in his writings and let readers decide for themselves to what extent they would give credence to them. I am not out to prove or disprove any of his claims. As a historian I have tried to be as objective as possible in narrating his life and work. Mormons will have no problem in believing everything Joseph related about his encounters with the divine. Others may be skeptical, but I hope they will, like me, find his life and legacy of particular importance in better appreciating how this nation developed during the early nineteenth century and how religion played such a commanding role in that process.
(Shrug) You can revert if you'd like. But as written the passage reflects the same sentiments with less appearance of POV. And since this article appears to be the subject of POV claims fairly often, I recommend the current version. However, if the edit actually misrepresents the source, it should not stand. Thanks again. Airborne84 ( talk) 06:03, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
To add context to the age range, I have been in a revert "war", which isn't a war, but folks seem to think it is, so here I am.
In the polygamy section, Emma's reaction is noted. Stepping into her shoes, it would probably be easier to have another wife in the marriage if that woman was my age. Her rejection of polygamy should be obvious when considering the age of Helen Mar Kimball: 14. This information gives great context, and allows the reader to understand why Emma reacted poorly to a God given commandment. Villaged ( talk) 19:38, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Lastly, in case you didn't see the diff, instead of just deleting the wording about Kimball, I moved it to the footnote, since that has often proved to be an acceptable compromise when someone insists on placing undue emphasis on this or that. ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 03:05, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, you're certainly entitled to your own opinion. One thing you should know. Not all people who have commented on this issue believe Smith to be a prophet. This article is contributed to by those who accept him as a prophet, those who believe he was a con man, and everyone in between. To balance the discrepancy, there's a little principle called consensus. This means that no editor or group of editors can put anything in an article contrary to the opinion of the majority. And it appears that the majority opinion in this case is in favor of either not including this fact at all, or, if it is included, to only include it in the footnotes. Sorry if you can't/won't accept that, but that's the way Wikipedia policy works. If you don't like it, you can complain to the admins. But don't expect much sympathy. As long as a consensus decision has been made and is backed up by reliable sources, then the decision will likely stand. Sorry. -- Jgstokes ( talk) 05:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
I pulled out my copy of Bushman tonight and re-read the sections on polygamy. I usually turn to Bushman's book when I'm uncertain of how much weight to give something, because it is pretty much universally accepted as the best biography of Smith. Anyway, Bushman mentions the ages of some of the wives, naming several by name and recounting their stories. He doesn't mention Kimball by name, or give her age in any part of the book. The closest he comes is in a parenthesis on page 492 where he's talking about the initial anguish the women, particularly the younger ones, must have felt. It reads: "(Ten of Joseph's wives were under twenty.)". For a detailed list of the wives, he directs readers to Compton's definitive work on the subject. If the leading 700 page biography on the subject doesn't bother to mention Kimball, why is it so important that we mention her in the corresponding 10 page encyclopedia article? The compromise of linking her in the footnote here is more weight than Bushman gives her in his entire book.
The question nobody has answered is why this is so important. Is it important enough to abandon good encyclopedic writing, to ignore WP:WEIGHT, and to deviate from trying to follow the best reliable sources? Is increasing a "yuck factor" more important than impartial writing and accuracy? Anyway, I have reverted the problematic changes for now, pending further discussion. ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 05:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. I've listed a few notes below:
The Revelations section has the following passage "Smith's first recorded revelation was a rebuke from God for having let Martin Harris lose 116 pages of Book of Mormon manuscript, chastising him for "fearing man more than God".[196] The revelation was given in the voice of God, and Smith, as a speaker, was absent from the revelation." I confess I have no idea what the last sentence means. In what sense was Smith "as a speaker" "absent from the revelation"? It sounds as though he somehow wasn't there when the revelation occurred. Since I'm assuming that the Voice of God was not heard by other people, I don't see how it could be conveyed unless Smith told people about it, so I don't know how he could be "absent" "as a speaker". The only sense I can make of this is that it's saying he heard what he believed was the voice of God, either inside his head or as a voice coming from somewhere. And that this voice was clearly not his own, but felt strongly like something coming from outside himself. Is this what is meant, or is it something else? Paul B ( talk) 16:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Is there consensus for this edit? I've reverted it twice now, and have been reverted twice myself. My problem with it is that it blanks sourced material with no good reason with the effect of implying (incorrectly) that Smith entered into garden-variety polygamous marriages with the wives of other men. This is not true. The source says,
All told, ten of Joseph's plural wives were married to other men. All of them went on living with their first husbands after marrying the Prophet. The reasons for choosing married women can only be surmised. Not all were married to non-Mormon men: six of the then husbands were active Latter-day Saints. In most cases, the husband knew of the plural marriage and approved. The practice seems inexplicable today. Why would a husband consent? Bushman p 439)
Also problematic is the wholesale replacement of "plural marriage" with "polygamous marriage". Plural marriage is a specific subset of polygamy, is the language used in the source, and it's ok to be specific. I don't see it as being particularly confusing: it's pretty clear what the term means. Thoughts on this? ~ Adjwilley ([[User talk:Adjwilley|talk] ]) 03:13, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
To try to avoid edit wars that in the past I have started, I'm starting off with the talk page to talk about my proposal. I have seen the light.
The article states the standard story about the First Vision, however, there are several, other versions that JS is responsible for. The references can be found at the Church's own article on the subject: https://www.lds.org/topics/first-vision-accounts
I'd propose something like: "Over the next twenty years, Smith told several versions of his visitation to resolve his religious confusion. While praying in a wooded area near his home, he said variously that God, Jesus Christ, and/or angels had visited him. In the most popular version of the First Vision, Joseph said that God had told him that his sins were forgiven and that all contemporary churches had "turned aside from the gospel."
This eliminates the "in a vision" piece before God, as that makes it sound like this wasn't something that Smith believe happened to him for real. It also addresses the multiple vision versions. Villaged ( talk) 16:48, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
In several later reminiscences, Smith said that around the time of his early religious uncertainty, a being appeared to him in a vision and forgave him of his sins, and/or told him that all contemporary churches were corrupt. Modern Mormons consider this "First Vision" to be the founding event of Mormonism.
but the two were not reconciled until September, after Emma began participating in temple ordinances and received an endowment.[288] Endowment? By who? God? Is this article suggesting that God influenced her? I think only facts are allowed!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.156.65.14 ( talk) 15:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Joseph Smith was not born in Sharon, Vermont, but closer to the nearby town of South Royalton. Check on Google. ---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.72.241 ( talk) 00:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
The current edit of the Book of Mormon section talks about the use of the seer stones without talking a great deal about the witness statements. While I think the section is worded pretty neutrally, I don't think it does enough to address the logical skepticism a reader would have about the stones. does anyone have any thoughts? Elmmapleoakpine ( talk) 00:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Shouldn't the death of his son go in the article too? Joseph and Emma's firstborn son died on the day of his birth, June 15, 1828, after the incident where Joseph was rebuked for letting Martin Harris take the plates. 97.102.61.193 ( talk) 17:13, 13 August 2015 (UTC)