![]() | 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 1 | Archive 2 |
This isn't the story that I know. Wasn't there something about bad people getting them and changing them and all of that, like maybe in D&C 10? This seems to follow the South Park version, which I guess might be right. Cookiecaper 04:20, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I've changed some items and made historically/culturally accurate - also fleshed out the article. - Visorstuff 19:22, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
LOL - Visorstuff actually does know a thing or two! Just wish I had time to do more fleshing out like this. Most of the info comes from primary documents, however, much of it can be found in (believe it or not) the "Church History in the Fulness of Times" student manual, "Latter-Day History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Expanded and Updated," by the Kelley's, "History of the Church Volume 1" and information from the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon (There is also some letters and statements from Martin Harris that confirm these details, but are not as accessible).
Did the cultural tie-in of a spiritual witness versus evidences make sense? I think Wikipedia has the space to do something other encyclopedias cannot typcially do - that being sharing some of the cultural context on racial and religious topics that help readers understand the bigger context and reasons people think they way they do. Thoughts? - Visorstuff 20:10, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for correcting those spelling errors, Mr. Davies. I'm hoping they weren't mine. If you're interested, we can discuss some of the other changes that I made. Joining the Methodist class seems as certain as anything else in this article. It's a pretty good sign if Bushman thinks he has to include it.-- John Foxe 20:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I reworded the section on "harris as smith's scribe" to remove the term "divination" which doesn't fit the context and added urim and thummim as a means of translation. While the Urim and Thummim evidently refers to both the seer stone and the urim and thummim it's sort of redundant, but at least it's thorough (as opposed to only saying seerstone). Looking at [divination] it was fairly evident that the proposed method of translation (garnered from the descriptions of Joseph and his associates) was not consistent with any of the types of divination described. Please explain reasoning here before restoring (the term "divination" should be used with care since it is a fairly loaded and POV word in and of itself). gdavies 00:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd actually like to see the reasons for (1)harris' delay get put back into the article. From his being called to jury duty to his farm financial issues, it needs to be included again.
Other items removed that seem conspicuously missing are: (3) Hoffmann's forgery attempts, and (3) - taking samples for one of the two anthon transcripts from the 116 pages. I'm also struggling with why these were removed without discussion? - Visorstuff 22:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate Visorstuff's citation requests to this section, I'm seeing a distinct POV attitude with a lot of speculation and some serious mischaracterizations. It seems by the nature of this section we're going to be relying far to heavily on speculation... gdavies 23:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I've tweaked some of the sentences, mostly for style, but the only sentences I've restored are these two: "Further, although God was said to have revealed prophecy and golden plates to Joseph Smith, He could not, or would not, tell him where the lost pages were. Finally, Smith did not explain why he believed different translations of a text should not be different from one another or why a fraudulent version with different handwriting would not be obvious." These sentences are not speculative; they are true on their face. God didn't tell Smith where the plates were, and Smith didn't explain why a fraudulent version couldn't be detected from its handwriting or why translations had to be exactly the same. The fact that the sentences do not follow LDS scripture is not a valid argument here.-- John Foxe 22:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with a few items regarding Foxe's recent edits. One is the article stating that the loss provided a "productive line of reasoning," asserting a POV (some may regard it as productive, others don't. Secondly, the section says "but no such attempt has ever been uncovered." The word ever should be removed, and the statement is phrased as a contradiction. Since Joseph didn't retranslate the lost portion, why would the "evil men's" plot surface? Effectively their alleged plan was spoiled. The phrasing now suggests the POV that Smith was embarrassed by the loss, the loss proved something against the church, etc. Rather than picking this whole deal apart, I'm just going to copy the remainder here and revert the edits...
This is basically a list of unsourced speculative criticisms of Joseph Smith (dripping in POV) reflective of Foxe's personal feelings on the subject. gdavies 22:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I've reduced the contentious section to one paragraph and hope that in doing so that I've brought us closer to concensus. I'm not even wedded to that final quotation if you don't believe it adequately reflects your beliefs.-- John Foxe 21:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I actually thought we were closer to consensus than apparently you did. We had some strong well-sourced statements, and Gldavies had some valid questions that need to be addressed. How about we discuss our changes here before making such dramatic changes. I'm completely reverting so we can discuss. - Visorstuff 23:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
The other thing, is that deleting this material leaves the reader to wonder what the current theories are about the MSS and how it was explained. The previous didn't do this. Perhaps a new header. And do we really need a "lessons learned" section? - Visorstuff 23:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I changed the header - there is currently not a "consequences for Mormon belief" section, as I moved the historical what happened to the plates into its own section, but consequences seems trite and unsupported. I agree that the section is speculative and open ended. how about effect on Mormon belief? - Visorstuff 08:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Regarding this section...
I have no idea what a little tangent about a methodist class and a practicing necromancer has to do with the 116 pages. Since it's taken out of context, it's very difficult to assess the pronouns (who is "he", etc.) and even more difficult to see how it relates to the subject at hand (resuming translation). gdavies 22:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
By the way, there are more than just the Harris and William Smith description of the Urim and Thummim. Cowdery published a description of them from his eyewitness as did Smith's own mother in her "biography of her son" Others who saw them ranged from Hiram Page to Smith's own family to Lucy Harris. The U&T was not in question, but the plates are what no one saw. - Visorstuff 23:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what information we present, John, you've already made up your mind. Joseph Smith III went through great lengths to prove that the seer stone, and not the U&T was used in translation, but always had to concede that he did in fact use it during portions. You can read about this in old issues of the saints herald - which are online at http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/artindex.htm#IL and http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/IL/sain1872.htm.
Even though Smith himself said he used the U&T JSH 1:62 (this was the same as the version smith approved which was printed in T&S during his life) and Cowdery confirmed [1] (which we have from multiple sources), it's much more salacious to say just the seer stone (Smith himself typically used the words "interpreters" which has led historians to believe he used more than one device. COGDEN knows this information as well as any editor on wikipedia, and he's never deleted that. in any case, Urim and Thummim is a process, not a device, according to wikipedia (and many other sources), so a use of a seer stone to recieve revelation would be considered using a urim and thummin - and that's how Joseph Fielding Smith and others considered the use of the seer stone. "Dr" Philatus Hurlburt was the first to make the claim that the U&T was not used, so your followoing some very old research. Even the brethren claim he used both, but not alot is known about how. (see Elder Nelson's talk on the topic). Also, a number of references and notes may be found in the article and footnotes here.
I see this as another example of owning an article to suit your POV. The inaccuracies in this article are simple and crazy, and being perpetuated. No wonder why there is so much Mormon, exmormon and anti-mormon folklore in existence. - Visorstuff 20:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Frankly, I don't care what your religious affiliation is. It is very possible for non-Mormons to be protective of Mormon-related articles. See Mountain Meadows Massacre, Temple (Mormonism), exmormon, Antimormon that were created and very much owned by non-mormons in their day or now, and there are many others. In fact, until about two years ago, the bulk of the editors editing Lds-related pages were not LDS. Owning is being over protective. and you are being over protective. I've seen at least a half a dozen editors tell you the same thing. I'm just encouraging you to be less protective and more inclusive of what others contribute. Its an insult to editors when you arbitrarily decide what is relevant and what is not, when they may have worked very hard to get that info for/in the article. Instead of reverting so readily, you should discuss with them first on the talk page, and come to a consensus, rather than reverting mutliple times. No hard feelings, its just frustrating to watch you.
I see no need to compromise. you said no sources were available, I've provided a few readily available. Now you want to dance around the wording. The fact is that many others stated that he did as well, but it doesnt' fit your point of view. You'll do what you want regardless, as your editing history has shown. So once again, I provide, you rebut and I give up. - Visorstuff 21:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry that my writing comes across as harsh. I am glad you are part of the project, I'm just concerned about your conclusions and additions/deletions and seemingly ownership of articles.
That said, what consensus needs to be reached? Either Smith and others said he used the Urim and Thummim or they did not. You said they didn't, I provided sources to demonstrate they did. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but what compromise needs to be reached on this? - Visorstuff 22:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Incidentally the only people who could knowledgably comment on the translation process are Joseph Smith, Martin Harris (his tiffany's account says urim and thummim, other accounts say Seer stone), Oliver Cowdery (says urim and thummim and seer stone) and Emma Smith (also uses both terms). No one else really witnessed the translation of the plates. David Whitmer's account was not from watching him, but from his association with cowdery (remember, everyone had to leave the cabin when smith translated, which is when mary whitmer claimed to have moroni appear to her with the plates. No one but those three helped as scribe that we know of (possibly emma's brother). So again, why are we using tertiary sources, rather than the words of those involved. - Visorstuff 17:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification, and that is exactly my understanding, aside from I believe David's involvement was pre-loss of the 116 pages, so I had discounted him as a scribe to the book of mormon as we know it (in other words, nothing that he scribed for appears today in the book of mormon), but I may be wrong on that. Too funny that I discounted him due to the 116 pages as that is what this particular article is about.
COGDEN, do you recall what Cowdery used when he translated the sentence or so in Alma (per D&C 6-8)? I seem to recall something about him using the breastplate, but it not fitting him as it fit joseph. Comments, as perhaps that will help with this as well? - Visorstuff 22:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Just of interest to this thread, we find the following footnote in CHC and Annotated history of Joseph Smith [3]:
I think we're making progress in this article, but I think it's important to focus on primary documents and make sure all secondary and tertiary resources hold up to wikipedia's reliability standards. Some of the sources definitely don't hold up to scholarship standards (such as those on utlm.com). Also, a lot of the sources cited seem like nothing more than published gossip from the time period, rarely attributed (one starts with "According to one Palmyra acquaintance of the Harris family") and are basically speculation. I'd like to keep this article comprehensive, but it needs to be more lucid and verifiable. gdavies 07:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
As much as I enjoy reverting these POV and speculative edits every day...
This is not a place for "John Foxe's three top arguments against the Book of Mormon in reference to the lost 116 pages. Your speculation on "what smith seems to have assumed" is absolutely inappropriate. Also, judging the evidence as "productive" or not is not within the purposes of Wikipedia. State facts and let people come to their own value judgments. "no such attempt has ever been uncovered," well according to Smith's story the manuscript would surface after he retranslated, but since he did not retranslate the Book of Lehi, bringing up the manuscript again wouldn't prove anything, and wouldn't make any sense. While this statement is true, it's difficult to source and it's misleading to the reader (implying a contradiction which may or may not exist). "although Smith claimed to be a prophet..." I'm embarrassed I have to point out the POV in this... the "although... however" structure isn't appropriate on Wikipedia, it advances the POV of the second clause and implies contradiction (as does the word "claim"). "Smith did not explain why he believed different translations of a text should not... etc." Who's to say that Smith believes this? This is your interpretation (and an unreasonable one at that) and certainly Smith doesn't have to answer for his beliefs that you somehow know he had (although we have absolutely no evidence supporting this supposed belief). This is verging on vandalism/ownership... gdavies 17:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Agree. It either needs to be sourced or not said. We let the reader draw conclusions on wikipedia, not lead them. - Visorstuff 20:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
No, asking the questions leads a reader down a point of view road. If we don't have answers to certain questions, or we don't have a referencable source of someone saying that it is a major issue, we shouldn't ask them in an article at wikipedia (sure, we can on the talk page to see if people have an answer or research on the topic). Wikipedia's place is not to ask unsourced questions, it is to provide an encyclopedia-like article. And raising questions is the place of academics or commercial monographs. For example, we could add in a question about why the Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company, that the company refuses to answer why they use aluminum in their wrappers, although nearly all other gum manufacturers use paper in the middle of that article. But if we started asking the questions as to why in the article, it just leads to people's belief in a conspiracy theory about aluminum wrappers. In the same vein, we shouldn't address the questions you introduced into the article unless we cite that these are major concerns of some scholar, etc.
That said, only the first four or five sentences of that entire section are truly referenceable and not purely conjecture. and the last sentence is an orphan and reads to be a judgement about mormonism, with nothing to do with the plates. Let me edit and lets see what you all think. - Visorstuff 00:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm willing to give up the translation problem, which seems hardest for casual readers to understand anyway, but Smith's inability to reveal what happened to the lost pages reflects on his prophetic gift and should be mentioned here as it was by nineteenth-century opponents of Mormonism. Likewise, the last paragraph is important to put the meaning of the event in context.-- John Foxe 11:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
The problem is, is that this is pure conjecture. WHO SAYS that the loss of the 116 pages makes mormons believe that you don't have to have physical evidence of anything? The answer is two people on wikipedia. That's it. I've NEVER heard this stated anywhere in my research. And believe me, I'm pretty well-read. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, and you can re-clarify here?
Rather, there are lessons learned and I even provided sources, however, as with other soruces they don't fit John Foxe's point of view and have now been censored. Pretty much the status quo of this article. I'm not letting this go. Source the sentence or get rid of it. - Visorstuff 23:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Lost 116 pages/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
This article was obviously written by a Mormon and thus is dubious and biased. I'm not saying that an anti-Mormon should write the article (that would be just as unfair), but I think a more objective tone and emphasis is necessary. |
Last edited at 10:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 20:51, 3 May 2016 (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 1 | Archive 2 |
This isn't the story that I know. Wasn't there something about bad people getting them and changing them and all of that, like maybe in D&C 10? This seems to follow the South Park version, which I guess might be right. Cookiecaper 04:20, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I've changed some items and made historically/culturally accurate - also fleshed out the article. - Visorstuff 19:22, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
LOL - Visorstuff actually does know a thing or two! Just wish I had time to do more fleshing out like this. Most of the info comes from primary documents, however, much of it can be found in (believe it or not) the "Church History in the Fulness of Times" student manual, "Latter-Day History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Expanded and Updated," by the Kelley's, "History of the Church Volume 1" and information from the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon (There is also some letters and statements from Martin Harris that confirm these details, but are not as accessible).
Did the cultural tie-in of a spiritual witness versus evidences make sense? I think Wikipedia has the space to do something other encyclopedias cannot typcially do - that being sharing some of the cultural context on racial and religious topics that help readers understand the bigger context and reasons people think they way they do. Thoughts? - Visorstuff 20:10, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for correcting those spelling errors, Mr. Davies. I'm hoping they weren't mine. If you're interested, we can discuss some of the other changes that I made. Joining the Methodist class seems as certain as anything else in this article. It's a pretty good sign if Bushman thinks he has to include it.-- John Foxe 20:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I reworded the section on "harris as smith's scribe" to remove the term "divination" which doesn't fit the context and added urim and thummim as a means of translation. While the Urim and Thummim evidently refers to both the seer stone and the urim and thummim it's sort of redundant, but at least it's thorough (as opposed to only saying seerstone). Looking at [divination] it was fairly evident that the proposed method of translation (garnered from the descriptions of Joseph and his associates) was not consistent with any of the types of divination described. Please explain reasoning here before restoring (the term "divination" should be used with care since it is a fairly loaded and POV word in and of itself). gdavies 00:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd actually like to see the reasons for (1)harris' delay get put back into the article. From his being called to jury duty to his farm financial issues, it needs to be included again.
Other items removed that seem conspicuously missing are: (3) Hoffmann's forgery attempts, and (3) - taking samples for one of the two anthon transcripts from the 116 pages. I'm also struggling with why these were removed without discussion? - Visorstuff 22:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate Visorstuff's citation requests to this section, I'm seeing a distinct POV attitude with a lot of speculation and some serious mischaracterizations. It seems by the nature of this section we're going to be relying far to heavily on speculation... gdavies 23:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I've tweaked some of the sentences, mostly for style, but the only sentences I've restored are these two: "Further, although God was said to have revealed prophecy and golden plates to Joseph Smith, He could not, or would not, tell him where the lost pages were. Finally, Smith did not explain why he believed different translations of a text should not be different from one another or why a fraudulent version with different handwriting would not be obvious." These sentences are not speculative; they are true on their face. God didn't tell Smith where the plates were, and Smith didn't explain why a fraudulent version couldn't be detected from its handwriting or why translations had to be exactly the same. The fact that the sentences do not follow LDS scripture is not a valid argument here.-- John Foxe 22:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with a few items regarding Foxe's recent edits. One is the article stating that the loss provided a "productive line of reasoning," asserting a POV (some may regard it as productive, others don't. Secondly, the section says "but no such attempt has ever been uncovered." The word ever should be removed, and the statement is phrased as a contradiction. Since Joseph didn't retranslate the lost portion, why would the "evil men's" plot surface? Effectively their alleged plan was spoiled. The phrasing now suggests the POV that Smith was embarrassed by the loss, the loss proved something against the church, etc. Rather than picking this whole deal apart, I'm just going to copy the remainder here and revert the edits...
This is basically a list of unsourced speculative criticisms of Joseph Smith (dripping in POV) reflective of Foxe's personal feelings on the subject. gdavies 22:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I've reduced the contentious section to one paragraph and hope that in doing so that I've brought us closer to concensus. I'm not even wedded to that final quotation if you don't believe it adequately reflects your beliefs.-- John Foxe 21:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I actually thought we were closer to consensus than apparently you did. We had some strong well-sourced statements, and Gldavies had some valid questions that need to be addressed. How about we discuss our changes here before making such dramatic changes. I'm completely reverting so we can discuss. - Visorstuff 23:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
The other thing, is that deleting this material leaves the reader to wonder what the current theories are about the MSS and how it was explained. The previous didn't do this. Perhaps a new header. And do we really need a "lessons learned" section? - Visorstuff 23:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I changed the header - there is currently not a "consequences for Mormon belief" section, as I moved the historical what happened to the plates into its own section, but consequences seems trite and unsupported. I agree that the section is speculative and open ended. how about effect on Mormon belief? - Visorstuff 08:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Regarding this section...
I have no idea what a little tangent about a methodist class and a practicing necromancer has to do with the 116 pages. Since it's taken out of context, it's very difficult to assess the pronouns (who is "he", etc.) and even more difficult to see how it relates to the subject at hand (resuming translation). gdavies 22:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
By the way, there are more than just the Harris and William Smith description of the Urim and Thummim. Cowdery published a description of them from his eyewitness as did Smith's own mother in her "biography of her son" Others who saw them ranged from Hiram Page to Smith's own family to Lucy Harris. The U&T was not in question, but the plates are what no one saw. - Visorstuff 23:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what information we present, John, you've already made up your mind. Joseph Smith III went through great lengths to prove that the seer stone, and not the U&T was used in translation, but always had to concede that he did in fact use it during portions. You can read about this in old issues of the saints herald - which are online at http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/artindex.htm#IL and http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/IL/sain1872.htm.
Even though Smith himself said he used the U&T JSH 1:62 (this was the same as the version smith approved which was printed in T&S during his life) and Cowdery confirmed [1] (which we have from multiple sources), it's much more salacious to say just the seer stone (Smith himself typically used the words "interpreters" which has led historians to believe he used more than one device. COGDEN knows this information as well as any editor on wikipedia, and he's never deleted that. in any case, Urim and Thummim is a process, not a device, according to wikipedia (and many other sources), so a use of a seer stone to recieve revelation would be considered using a urim and thummin - and that's how Joseph Fielding Smith and others considered the use of the seer stone. "Dr" Philatus Hurlburt was the first to make the claim that the U&T was not used, so your followoing some very old research. Even the brethren claim he used both, but not alot is known about how. (see Elder Nelson's talk on the topic). Also, a number of references and notes may be found in the article and footnotes here.
I see this as another example of owning an article to suit your POV. The inaccuracies in this article are simple and crazy, and being perpetuated. No wonder why there is so much Mormon, exmormon and anti-mormon folklore in existence. - Visorstuff 20:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Frankly, I don't care what your religious affiliation is. It is very possible for non-Mormons to be protective of Mormon-related articles. See Mountain Meadows Massacre, Temple (Mormonism), exmormon, Antimormon that were created and very much owned by non-mormons in their day or now, and there are many others. In fact, until about two years ago, the bulk of the editors editing Lds-related pages were not LDS. Owning is being over protective. and you are being over protective. I've seen at least a half a dozen editors tell you the same thing. I'm just encouraging you to be less protective and more inclusive of what others contribute. Its an insult to editors when you arbitrarily decide what is relevant and what is not, when they may have worked very hard to get that info for/in the article. Instead of reverting so readily, you should discuss with them first on the talk page, and come to a consensus, rather than reverting mutliple times. No hard feelings, its just frustrating to watch you.
I see no need to compromise. you said no sources were available, I've provided a few readily available. Now you want to dance around the wording. The fact is that many others stated that he did as well, but it doesnt' fit your point of view. You'll do what you want regardless, as your editing history has shown. So once again, I provide, you rebut and I give up. - Visorstuff 21:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry that my writing comes across as harsh. I am glad you are part of the project, I'm just concerned about your conclusions and additions/deletions and seemingly ownership of articles.
That said, what consensus needs to be reached? Either Smith and others said he used the Urim and Thummim or they did not. You said they didn't, I provided sources to demonstrate they did. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but what compromise needs to be reached on this? - Visorstuff 22:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Incidentally the only people who could knowledgably comment on the translation process are Joseph Smith, Martin Harris (his tiffany's account says urim and thummim, other accounts say Seer stone), Oliver Cowdery (says urim and thummim and seer stone) and Emma Smith (also uses both terms). No one else really witnessed the translation of the plates. David Whitmer's account was not from watching him, but from his association with cowdery (remember, everyone had to leave the cabin when smith translated, which is when mary whitmer claimed to have moroni appear to her with the plates. No one but those three helped as scribe that we know of (possibly emma's brother). So again, why are we using tertiary sources, rather than the words of those involved. - Visorstuff 17:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification, and that is exactly my understanding, aside from I believe David's involvement was pre-loss of the 116 pages, so I had discounted him as a scribe to the book of mormon as we know it (in other words, nothing that he scribed for appears today in the book of mormon), but I may be wrong on that. Too funny that I discounted him due to the 116 pages as that is what this particular article is about.
COGDEN, do you recall what Cowdery used when he translated the sentence or so in Alma (per D&C 6-8)? I seem to recall something about him using the breastplate, but it not fitting him as it fit joseph. Comments, as perhaps that will help with this as well? - Visorstuff 22:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Just of interest to this thread, we find the following footnote in CHC and Annotated history of Joseph Smith [3]:
I think we're making progress in this article, but I think it's important to focus on primary documents and make sure all secondary and tertiary resources hold up to wikipedia's reliability standards. Some of the sources definitely don't hold up to scholarship standards (such as those on utlm.com). Also, a lot of the sources cited seem like nothing more than published gossip from the time period, rarely attributed (one starts with "According to one Palmyra acquaintance of the Harris family") and are basically speculation. I'd like to keep this article comprehensive, but it needs to be more lucid and verifiable. gdavies 07:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
As much as I enjoy reverting these POV and speculative edits every day...
This is not a place for "John Foxe's three top arguments against the Book of Mormon in reference to the lost 116 pages. Your speculation on "what smith seems to have assumed" is absolutely inappropriate. Also, judging the evidence as "productive" or not is not within the purposes of Wikipedia. State facts and let people come to their own value judgments. "no such attempt has ever been uncovered," well according to Smith's story the manuscript would surface after he retranslated, but since he did not retranslate the Book of Lehi, bringing up the manuscript again wouldn't prove anything, and wouldn't make any sense. While this statement is true, it's difficult to source and it's misleading to the reader (implying a contradiction which may or may not exist). "although Smith claimed to be a prophet..." I'm embarrassed I have to point out the POV in this... the "although... however" structure isn't appropriate on Wikipedia, it advances the POV of the second clause and implies contradiction (as does the word "claim"). "Smith did not explain why he believed different translations of a text should not... etc." Who's to say that Smith believes this? This is your interpretation (and an unreasonable one at that) and certainly Smith doesn't have to answer for his beliefs that you somehow know he had (although we have absolutely no evidence supporting this supposed belief). This is verging on vandalism/ownership... gdavies 17:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Agree. It either needs to be sourced or not said. We let the reader draw conclusions on wikipedia, not lead them. - Visorstuff 20:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
No, asking the questions leads a reader down a point of view road. If we don't have answers to certain questions, or we don't have a referencable source of someone saying that it is a major issue, we shouldn't ask them in an article at wikipedia (sure, we can on the talk page to see if people have an answer or research on the topic). Wikipedia's place is not to ask unsourced questions, it is to provide an encyclopedia-like article. And raising questions is the place of academics or commercial monographs. For example, we could add in a question about why the Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company, that the company refuses to answer why they use aluminum in their wrappers, although nearly all other gum manufacturers use paper in the middle of that article. But if we started asking the questions as to why in the article, it just leads to people's belief in a conspiracy theory about aluminum wrappers. In the same vein, we shouldn't address the questions you introduced into the article unless we cite that these are major concerns of some scholar, etc.
That said, only the first four or five sentences of that entire section are truly referenceable and not purely conjecture. and the last sentence is an orphan and reads to be a judgement about mormonism, with nothing to do with the plates. Let me edit and lets see what you all think. - Visorstuff 00:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm willing to give up the translation problem, which seems hardest for casual readers to understand anyway, but Smith's inability to reveal what happened to the lost pages reflects on his prophetic gift and should be mentioned here as it was by nineteenth-century opponents of Mormonism. Likewise, the last paragraph is important to put the meaning of the event in context.-- John Foxe 11:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
The problem is, is that this is pure conjecture. WHO SAYS that the loss of the 116 pages makes mormons believe that you don't have to have physical evidence of anything? The answer is two people on wikipedia. That's it. I've NEVER heard this stated anywhere in my research. And believe me, I'm pretty well-read. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, and you can re-clarify here?
Rather, there are lessons learned and I even provided sources, however, as with other soruces they don't fit John Foxe's point of view and have now been censored. Pretty much the status quo of this article. I'm not letting this go. Source the sentence or get rid of it. - Visorstuff 23:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Lost 116 pages/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
This article was obviously written by a Mormon and thus is dubious and biased. I'm not saying that an anti-Mormon should write the article (that would be just as unfair), but I think a more objective tone and emphasis is necessary. |
Last edited at 10:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 20:51, 3 May 2016 (UTC)