Talk:History of the Latter Day Saint movement/Archive 1

Archive 1

de-Quinnification?

I am so sick of seeing articles nearly totally based on D. Michael Quinn's research. He is not a preservationist historian - he draws conclusions and then tries to support rather than letting the evidence speak for itself. Nothing against him, just don't believe in his methodology - even if his findings in some cases are/are not my opinions as well.

In any case, there was WAAAAAY to much/too close alignement to his research, that this reads like a book report and could have copyright issues. Let's either fix or get rid of the one-source wonders in this article. There are more factual and reliable sources than Quinn. -Visorstuff 00:06, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I for one would be glad to see what ideas you have. Why don't you go ahead and start reworking what bothers you? Tom - Talk 17:52, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

I don't want to scare away User:64.24.245.46, who added most of the recent Quinn material and has made good contributions to this and other articles, but I agree with Visorstuff that this article shouldn't be so much about Quinn's conclusions, even if those conclusions are followed by counter-arguments. I personally think Quinn's works are some of the most thorough and independent secular historical works we've got on the specific subjects he has written about, but it's much better to cite directly to Quinn's sources. I'd be careful when citing him as a source, without spending much more time discussing the primary sources upon which his conclusions were based. It's easy to argue with Quinn's conclusions, but it's hard to argue with his primary sources. COGDEN 19:58, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

Most definitely we must not bite the newbies. It's never easy, is it. I will give a welcome and you can go ahead and edit. Tom - Talk 05:49, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

Folks ---- in part in answer to this Quinn question --- I moved the enormous article here on the Succession Crisis (Mormon) to its own separate article, leaving a good summary. I also did a serious overhaul of the article there and added lots and lots of material that isn't related to Quinn's research (thus effectively de-Quinnizing it or at least significantly supplementing it). Hopefully you will all think that's a worthwhile change and approve of it! --John Hamer 21:22, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Purpose?

Now that I've dug into this article -- separating out and expanding Succession Crisis (Mormon) -- I want to ask about the purpose of the whole article.

Obviously, we can't tell a detailed picture of the whole movement in one article, it would be way too long. Instead, I think that this article should be a summary and should especially emphasize development of the "Movement" itself --- i.e., where individual schisms arise and the reader should go off and follow the history of the individual church in question.

Things like excessive focus on details in the life of Joseph Smith probably belong in the Joseph Smith article instead of here. Is there agreement or objections to that idea? --John Hamer 21:55, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Do it. -Visorstuff 00:29, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I thought the same, and vice versa. The articles ought to each have a consistent scope and purpose. Tom H. 05:02, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. In my opinion, this article should be about the internal and external institutional history up until the death of Joseph Smith. Most importantly, it should describe the origin, structure, and interrelationship of various early Mormon institutions, and how they relate to major doctrines and practices (with citations to doctrinal articles handling the meat of each doctrine or practice). The article should also discuss the history of interractions between early Mormon institutions and the outside world. By "institutions", I mean either the church as a whole, or one of its internal organizations, divisions, or factions. Even defined in this way, however, the article has the potential to be very large, and we may need at some point to break up the article by time. COGDEN 20:35, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

Proposed Change

Ok --- Here's what I did and here's the thinking behind it. Although the original article was fine, I felt that most of it simply tracked the life of Joseph Smith, Jr. which is already told in great detail in that article. Instead of beginning with Smith's birth and early life, I wanted to begin with a brief attempt to discuss some background context. With the organization of the church --- again I wanted to try to write this from the perspective of the coming together of the Movement --- rather than Smith's process of translating the Golden Plates, etc. (which is again described elsewhere).

Thereafter, in Ohio, Missouri and Illinois, I wanted to try to produce brief summaries, focussing on developments in the hierarchy and doctrine and the creation of schisms --- attempting, where possible, to simply include as many links to the rich articles of Wikipedia as possible.

I take the movement somewhat past Smith's death because I think that each denomination was only really separated from the general body of Latter Day Saints when it announced a new organization --- Rigdon (1844), Strang (1844), Young (1847), Whitmer (1847), Thompson (1848), Brewster (1848), Wight (1849), Cutler (1853), Joseph Smith III (1860), Hedrick (1863), etc. --John Hamer 16:20, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It sure looks good. Keep up the good work, John. Tom Haws 15:07, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

Assorted reverts...

Visorstuff: "Reverted changes, none were even more remotely accurate"

Can you clarify what facts are at issue here? At first wink, this looks more like POV wars. Alai 02:26, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think the reverts are reasonable --- the tone of some of these attempted changes seems mean-spirited. We already have that Smith "said" the translation was through the aid of revelation, i.e., NPOV. "Peep stones" and that sort of thing are tiny details might better be elaborated outside of the general overview article.

I personally agree that the residents of Hancock County had "reason" to fear Mormon block-voting would lead to theocracy. But adding "from neighbors who feared, with reason, that Mormon block-voting would lead to the kind of theocracy Smith frequently espoused" to me seems like we are taking sides. In other words, I may agree that these folks had reason to fear, but if I write it that way, I'm not neutral anymore. --John Hamer 04:20, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, those are precisely the POV issues I had in mind. (My impression is that several of them went from pretty much NPOV or mildly LDS POV to distinctly anti-/skeptical POV.) But there's distinct added content here, and it's not clear to me that any of them were factual errors as such. Focus is certainly a valid concern too, of course, and it may well be that none of these really add value to the article. But I'd prefer some more discussion of reverts, and at a minimum, accurate characterisations of the reasons for them. Alai 04:47, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There's one change that's clearly beyond language-tweaking, and may be factually material and/or inaccurate: '(Estimates of individuals who actually consider themselves Mormon are consistently lower, usually less than half of the 'official' numbers.)' We'd certainly need a source on this though. (Original author?) Alai 04:58, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

We have to at least avoid reverting this kind of stuff. Even if only one of the tweaks was a clear improvement. I think (and this is just my personal policy) leaving the article alone 'til you have time to compare the current version to a "known good" historic version and fix any problems is preferable to these small "reverts of exasperation". But maybe I am too easy going. Tom Haws 05:41, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

I'd gladly give a play by play - (John's concern is valid)

First: are mormon doctrines "unique within Christianity" or "foreign to Christianity" if the latter, then are Mormons Christian. They say they are, the latter implies they are not. SEcond: The change said that smith translated the book of Mormon "through the aid of revelation and the use of 'peep stones', or seer stones, currently known to most Mormons as the 'Urim and Thummim'" The seer stone is known as the seer stone. The U&T are known as the U&T. Most modern Mormons understand the difference. This is factually incorrect in a number of ways. Third. the editor over simplified the reasons for the conflict. it was political in nature, that was removed. it should be added back in. Next: please let me know where Joseph smith called Polygamy "plural marriage." This was a later development, was it not? The block voting - john's concern is valid. could have been left in. finally, "(Estimates of individuals who actually consider themselves Mormon are consistently lower, usually less than half of the 'official' numbers.)" This is wrong. A study by Stan Albreit states that a majority (need to look up the numbers, but believe it is 85+ percent state they are mormon, even if they don't practice. Only 3 percent ask for record removal and as high as 10 percent may apostacise. We have a much higher cohesion that other denominations. Now as far as activity rates worldwide, i can dip lower. US is still fairly high at nearly 60 percent. That's the latest numbers i've seen.

On another note. I'm going through some major transitions at work over the next little while. I may not be online much - I apologize if i do simple reverts - they save me time. However, if that doesn't work for you all, i'll abstain from that until i have time to do justice to the articles. My goal has been to make sure the articles are factually and doctrinally correct. If you need me to take a look at something, leave a note on my talk page, otherwise my edits will be more intermittent (once a day-ish breifly). Alai - thanks for keeping us in check - it is much needed. -Visorstuff 08:40, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Many thanks for the clarifications, V. Taking them in order: yes, I agree that "foreign" is heavy POV, and worse for that reason. (Arguably "unique" is (mild) POV due to underplaying, but it's at the very least the better of the two.) U&T -- my confusion on this topic is increased by the fact that references to same seem to keep popping up in transient edits, and getting reverted. Is there some context an appropriate explanation can be placed? (Not necessarily this article by any means.) That might help sate people's urge to throw in out-of-context references to 'em. (Or it may not, but it's a thought.) "Persecutions" vs. "conflict": again there may be POV issues either way. (Persecution may be entirely accurate for all I know, but here it's flat assertion without any supporting context, so a more neutral term and/or a reference elsewhere may be useful.) Your study recollection's good enough for me, so unless the anon (or anyone else) comes back with specific data (and 'activity' isn't the issue here, so no concerns on that score).

On mature reflection your revert was largely justified, I was just somewhat thrown by the edit summary text. And these are hardly urgent issues, so no worries on the timeliness front. Thanks for the encouraging words. Alai 17:22, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to echo the sentiment about urgency. We have some very high-quality articles starting to develop, and a bit of questionable POV here and there for a while is not a threat to the project. Even after two or three weeks, we can compare a version we last edited to the current to check for sly edits. Tom Haws 17:27, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

I too apologize for not being appreciative enough. V said: "please let me know where Joseph smith called Polygamy "plural marriage." This was a later development, was it not?" Believe it or not, I was thinking of this in bed last night, and of course you are right. In those days it was called "celestial marriage". Thanks for keeping an eye on the project. I am very thankful that now we are beginning to get enough editors that the work load can start to be spread out. Perhaps it might be a good idea to have the project participants sign the talk pages of the pages they are watching so we know what kind of coverage we have. I personally feel glad knowing the bread of perspective and expertise that is starting to develop. Should I mention this at the WP:LDS project? Tom Haws 17:24, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, please bring it up there. Some accuse me of splitting hairs when it comes to doctrine and history of the Church, however, a slight word change can have significant consequences to doctrine and wording. Just think of what the Kingdom of God, the Kingdom of God on the Earth, and the Kingdom of Heaven mean in historical Mormon theology. Most would think they are the same, but historically, they are very different meanings in Mormonism. Similar to the building or rebuilding of the Nauvoo temple. Is it the original rebuilt, or a new one? Why was the Nauvoo temple dedicated as each room was completed in 1845-6? There was reasons for doing this, and that is the basis for my argument there. As for the Urim and Thummim question, you may want to look at Urim and Thummim which gives good background, but agree we need to expand. I think John's expertise would best be used to expand this, based on his areas of research and involvement in the Whitmer Association. Perhaps a new page explaining the U&T and how it differs from the seer stone and other mediums would be helpful- at Urim and Thummim (Mormonism)? Alai - the possession of a U&T in Mormon theology can only be had by a seer. The seer stone is simply a stone that was used at times for various things. There is no unrefutable evidence (or even strong in my view) that smith received revelation from God on spiritual matters through the seer stone, aside from portions of the Book of Mormon manuscript. In many contexts outsiders would say that the stone magnified smith's already "supernatural abilities" to see things, but it was not the main conduit of revelation as the U&T was. anyway. All - let me know your thoughts. I'll be finishing up my edits for the day shortly. I do think that it may be beneficial to find some way for us to get together real time outside of the talk pages (in person or on a call or chat) to talk about the direction of the project. The project has been cited as both a "mess" and an "good example" but we are still too POV. Tom - can you bring this up on the project too? I'm not suggesting a Project Symposium, but rather some time to do some good solid planning. Alai - your perspective is crucial to us in the future direction of the project - please keep you interest in the project - we need you to stay a part of it. I do wish Wesley or some others would join the project as well. -Visorstuff 19:08, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

From a NEW newbie

The "Latter Day Saint movement" tripe here leaves me mystified. There are, perhaps, seven people on the planet who would make an issue of the "-d/ D" non-controversy, and they seem all to have converged on Wikipedia.

I recognize that much has gone on before my appearance, but is it possible to reduce the hyphenation controversy to a separate location, and thereby de-Strang-ify all the LDS/Mormon pages?

--The Practical Mormon, a long-time anonymous poster who's nearly coming in out of the cold over this overblown issue.

Hi - glad to see you've taken an interest. Let me give some context. Latter-day Saints are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. However, they are not the only denomination decendent from Smith. Mormonism does not adequately describe the entire movement as it is too specific to BY and Strang descendant churches or in other contexts the culture and doctrines. The "Plains" churches would not only take offence to the term "Mormon" or "Mormonism", AND it does not descibe their current views in many cases. Please read the discussion at Talk:Mormonism#Mormonism_vs_Latter_Day_Saint_movement and Naming conventions:Mormonism for more on this matter.

Many Non-LDS scholars refer to the movement this way, including many historical associations - such as the John Whitmer association and the Mormon History Association. See User:John Hamer for details on Jan Shipps and Leonard J. Arrington's use of the term "Latter Day Saint" in connection with the movement founded by Joseph Smith.

The fact is that Mormonism is too specific to the culture, practice and doctrines of parts of the movement, while the movement itself has a shared history with other denominations - some of which now denounce the Book of Mormon. You cannot call them Latter-day Saints, they came into being prior to the British English spelling (hyphenation) of the term we currently use. We've discussed this in many other places, and have come to the conclusion that it is the best descriptor that is used in academia/historical world. There is another page for the history of the Latter-day Saints (History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints). You may also want to visit Talk:Latter Day Saint, Latter Day Saint, Latter-day_Saint and especiall WP:LDS and its talk page, archive pages, etc. for additional context.

This may seem like a stupid matter, but this is the decision we've made as a project after multiple years of experience, and is supported by scholarly norms - see WP:LDS. We'd like to invite you to join the project - it may answer many of your questions. You may also want to visit List of articles about Mormonism.

Thanks for the warm welcome.

My real concern (my aversion to the " D" is merely aesthetic) is that this page, and others, linger pointlessly on the miniscule disharmony over naming, and thereby raise it to the level of full-blown controversy, while missing the entire point of a history page.

IMHO, all naming discussion belongs on a separate page altogether (which STILL gives it too much prominence -- perhaps a stub would be more appropriate), and shouldn't appear at all on a history page -- which should instead focus on personalities, doctrinal development, and the like.

Given the dearth of grammatical standardization in the 19th century, any prolonged discussion of distinctive paths of hyphenation development is prima facie overblown; it would be useful to recast this page and others that stumble over naming to focus on serious issues that genuinely matter to the movement.

--The Practical Mormon http://www.ldessays.com

Thanks for the thought. While I agree it was merely stylistic in the 19th century, it is now the 21 century and is very much an issue with Latter Day Saint denominations. Most Mormons (Latter-day Saints) are oblivious to the offense, the division and the ignorance they have, as they are the largest group - and they often ignore the minority groups. In addition, when you are referring to other groups it becomes VERY problematic and offensive to Mormons as well - for example, do you think we should call Warren Jeffs and his FLDS group "Mormons" or "Latter-day Saints." Technically by your reasoning (even though they do not hyphenate) they would be considered Latter-day Saints. By saying this you upset a bunch of Mormons, but you can't call FLDS apostates, as most outside of the Church would see them as a denomination of Mormonism or Latter Day Saint sect and this would be offensive to FLDS (plus then you'd have to call all protestants who are not in catholic-approved sects apostates or heretics, which would turn Wikipedia and the world on its side). This was a very complex issue that led to the current naming conventions here.

As far as the issue being on a stub, that may be true, but we have to educate possible editors as to why we used the term so we are not constantly reverting someone's edits who changed Latter Day to Latter-day. Many months ago this was the case, and much of our time was reverting and explaining why. Which is stupid. Why use the term - then you come back the the issues outlined in the above paragraph. We are in a quagmire on this issue I agree, but until you or someone else can think of a better naming convention for Non-LDS sects who trace their religious beliefs through Joseph Smith, we are stuck with the current, scholarly-used term (we are more than open to suggestions). No other term has caught on. I would love to not have to explain the term every time we use it, but to save time in the long run we do explain it. In addition, the nice thing about the Internet and Wikipedia, is that we are not contrained by size. WE can afford to explain the term within the article real estate. I do not see it as a controversy, but more of an educational issue that needs to be addressed to Mormons who do not see outside their own church and, unfortunately, tend to persecute by their ignorance those who have similar beliefs but fall outside of their faith. It is an unfortunate thing that hopefully education can address. (please don't read this as an attack from me on my church, but I am saying culturally we are pretty ignorant as to the offense we cause by our own obliviousness. This is ONE reason President Hinckley tells us to be better in this area).

In addition, you have to define a movement before you can "focus on personalities, doctrinal development, and the like." I wouldn't just start talking about the Church (or this movement) without discussing what it is first. This quite well fits withing encyclopedic norms.

Then again, perhaps I am not quite understanding your issue. Please make no mistake, this is not a sylistic issue of hyphenation development, but rather a standard used in academia and Mormonism-historian/scholar circles. I look forward to your thoughts and clarification. -Visorstuff 20:36, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Aiyi...

Sorry I'm being unclear. I'm delighted to concede the hyphen for harmony's sake.

What I find unfortunate is this notion (quoting Visorstuff) : "very much an issue with Latter Day Saint denominations."

I assert that it is very much *not* an issue, except for the grammar-Nazis amongst us (of whom I am obviously one), but in the larger scheme of things hyphenation debates are -- relative to all doctrinal issues -- a bit of fluff and nonsense.

Hence my concern. What should be merely arcane trivia is elevated to the status of major controversy in these pages...

That's disproportionate, and I'm therefore proposing to undertake a rewrite that refocuses this page (and others) away from the itsy-bitsy naming grimace and toward issues of consequence.

--The Practical Mormon

Perhaps I am missing your point still. This is not an hyphen issue. This is a connotation issue. The issue is this:

• Are FLDS members Latter-day Saints or Mormons? If not, what are they to be called? They call themselves "Latter Day Saints"
• Are Community of Christ members Latter-day Saints or Mormons? If not, what are they to be called? They often call themselves "Latter Day Saints" or "Christians"
• Are Strangites Latter-day Saints or Mormons? If not, what are they to be called? They call themselves "Latter Day Saints"
• Are LDS members Latter-day Saints or Mormons? If not, what are they to be called? If so, what are people of other Smith-related sects called?
• What should we in the scholarly world refer to all of the members of these sects as? Latter-day Saints? Mormons? Latter Day Saints? Smithites? or something very long such as "sects who trace their religious beliefs through Joseph Smith that are not members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?"

That last one would kill and confuse every page in the Wikipedia a lot worse than Latter Day Saint. Most of the pages about Mormonism-related topics begin with a discussion about the entire grouping of folks "who trace their religious beliefs through Joseph Smith that are not members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" and then drill down to discuss what each of the different sects believe on various issues, starting with the LDS Church, CoC, FLDS, etc., (based on descending order of size).

You mentioned "What I find unfortunate is this notion (quoting Visorstuff) : 'very much an issue with Latter Day Saint denominations.'" Please don't misunderstand - the hyphen is not the issue, but what they are called. We tend to call LDS folks Latter-day Saints or Mormons, but it is great offense to call a member of the Church of Christ with the Elijah Message a Mormon. They would much rather be called a Hedrickite or a Latter Day Saint. If you call them a Latter-day Saint, they would correct you and clarify that they are not affiliated with the Utah Church. And then they'd discuss how everyone confuses them with that Church and how it is offensive. That is the "very much an issue" I'm talking about.

This is not about an "itsy-bitsy naming grimace" dealing with hyphens, but about what folks of various denominations are called and unfortunately about not offending LDS and non-LDS adherent to "sects who trace their religious beliefs through Joseph Smith that are not members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." That is what they call themselves - Latter Day Saints - as well as what scholars call them to "differentiate" them from other sects.

Am I still mis-understanding :^) you? You seem to think this is a hyphen issue or a grammatical issue. It is not. It is not neccessarily a modified "day" in all cases. By the way, you can sign you name by typing four tildes in a row (~~~~) and it will automatically do your name and put a date stamp it. I guess I'm still trying to understand your concern. Is is simply the use of the hypen or about the use of Latter Day Saint to refere to those of all "sects who trace their religious beliefs through Joseph Smith that are not members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?" -Visorstuff 00:33, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm confused too. If you're not unhappy with the article title itself, Practical, I don't see what the "tripe"/"major controversy"/need for a refocusing rewrite is. I don't see anything much in the way of terminological obsessing in the article as it stands... Alai 06:46, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Practical. I'm the third editor chiming in here. I think V has done a really good job of explaining why at Wikipedia we have ended up where we are. And I think most of the editors here feel pretty comfortable with the current solution. I have to say I am one of the many who have at times had a bit of trouble with "the Latter Day Saint movement" as a title. However, after surveying the whole situation and considering all the issues and options, all of us eventually end up agreeing with what has been done. Perhaps you will too. And maybe you will find a better way to present it. Tom Haws 14:22, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Excellent point Tom. That said Practical, please do share your ideas on how to improve. We do not claim to have the end solution, but rather the best one that works for now. I've enjoyed reading your blog and I look forward to seeing more -Visorstuff 17:04, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

New Order Mormons

This section was taken from the main page:

Another variation of the cultural Mormon is the "New Order Mormon ", a word coined by the founder of a website for Mormons who no longer believe some of the doctrines of the LDS church, but who want to maintain membership for cultural and social reasons. They usually keep their doubts a secret from family and friends to prevent conflicts within their families, especially with parents or their spouse. In contrast to the "Jack Mormons", they often participate actively in the church and maintain a facade of believing in the doctrines. New Order Mormons are primarily an Internet community because of their need for anonymity.

The Church does not consider lack of belief in its doctrines to be acceptable. If they are discovered, they are encouraged to repent, fast, pray, and seek guidance within the church to strengthen their faith (or "testimony"). If they fail to do this, they are subject to church discipline, which may include disfellowship or excommunication. The church is adamant about maintaining unity in doctrine among practicing members.

I don't think this belongs here. If they are a formal group, that would be one thing. But as far as I can tell, this is just a bunch of disaffected members who happen to frequent and communicate via a website. As soon as they go off and form their own sect, then I think it would be more appropriate.

I also don't think it belongs because of a policy against new research. If there is some research or publications out there on this group, then we could include it. As it is, it is not something that has been generally accepted by anyone except themselves right now. Jgardner 21:34, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

New Order Mormons - but they do exist...

Adding this article was not meant to offend the believing Mormons, but to draw attention to the fact that these people actually exist.

I admit the name makes it sound like an organization, which it clearly is not...but this is the only word I have found to describe this group of people.

As you said, if actual sociological research is done on this topic, maybe a standardized name will be given to them.

If you believe that New Order Mormons need to just see their bishop, I suggest you read a little on their website...there are well-written articles written on their website explaining their difficult position, most notably one called "The Paradox of the Faithful Unbeliever"

http://home.comcast.net/~zarahemla/peggy_rogers1.htm

If you feel a more generic word should be used, as they are not a formal organization, perhaps we can think of one?

Unorthodox Mormon?

I agree with Jgardner that this material doesn't belong here on this movement History page. New Order Mormons are really just a diverse population of Latter-day Saints, not a distinct movement or organization. Every religion has its skeptical or disbelieving members. But certainly, there's nothing wrong with having a New Order Mormons article. COGDEN 23:24, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

I guess I am a little perplexed by the even trying to qualify who is LDS and who is not. I can't help but believe that in every organization based upon faith that there exists a body of believers with different degrees of faith and beliefs. Are we trying to make Mormons to be a homogeneous group? I think we might be taking the LDS people far too seriously. Further, having some experience with church courts, I think one is sadly misinformed if a church court would be held becuase one does not embrace every piece of doctrine in the Church. However, if one starts to create and another church, preach against church doctrine in an overt manner, or joins an apostate group, then we are talking about a situation that may very well indeed result in a disciplinary court. Let's stop trying to create complexity where it doesn't exist. Storm Rider 00:48, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Joseph Smith Murder/Assassination/Killing

I reverted the edits of anon editor, 65.207.98.2 (→The Assassination of Joseph Smith) today. My reasons are as follows: Yes, Joseph was killed, but he was also assassinated by the communities of fun-loving Christians that surrounded Nauvoo. I believe assassinated is the proper term. Second, Joseph consented to being in the Carthage jail under the promises of Gov. Ford that he would be safe. Third, I fail to see how Mormons intimidated the entire surrounding communities. Mormons may have intimidated people in Nauvoo (i.e. you bring a printing press into their fair, little town and start printing anti-Joseph articles and the Mormons are more than likely going to destroy your press; yup, sounds like intimidation to me if you lived in Nauvoo, but not if you lived in the rest of the state). Basically, Anon, your edits were POV and don't address reality.

I would encourage you to come back and take another stab at it. For example, Joseph's murder would work fine. The assassination part makes Joseph Smith into more of a political figure than the spiritual figure he was; murder would seem to work better in my opinion. Storm Rider 16:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

We actually hashed out that it was an assassination rather than a murder on other pages - can't remmber if it was Joseph Smith, Jr. or the one about his death or succession crisis - however, we determined that it was an assassination for a few reasons: 1 - he was a presidential candidate at the time (and not neccessarily a small one - not a major party, but it would be the equivelent of someone killing Ralph Nader) 2-he was mayor of Nauvoo. 3- He was a major spritual leader 4 and most importantly he was killed for what he represented after a call for his death by rivals (murders do not imply conspiricy nor belief-cause as the term assassinated does). Also, Joseph was released by use of habeas corpus and was not imprisoned or confined, but rather stayed as a "guest" of the state of Illinois. I do think that retributive violence is a good term to desribe Mormon's actions. -Visorstuff 19:55, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree. And assassination doesn't necessarily imply a political figure, although I think Smith would qualify as one. COGDEN 20:12, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Alternatives to the word supernatural

I've moved this discussion from my talk page, for comments here: (COGDEN 07:26, September 8, 2005 (UTC))

Supernatural?? ........boy, does that have connotations! Ghouls, ghosts and goblins! How 'bout - "Spiritual experiences by early members" or something similar? Comments welcome. WBardwin 22:47, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I have a problem with spiritual experiences, too, because it's not quite accurate, even in today's Mormon lingo. Today, a spiritual experience is a really good sacrament meeting where people cry, whereas non-Mormons don't know what it means. What happened to Joseph Smith was more than just spiritual, it was supernatural. I don't like spiritualist experiences, either, because the connotes turn-of-the century Spiritualism, which isn't what was going on circa 1830. I used supernatural because I though it was the most accurate word that was also relatively clinical and neutral. Other potential words, such as mystical or magical have problems, as well. COGDEN 01:31, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Well, Roget's ties "supernatural" to "miraculous, preternatural, abnormal, unearthly, superhuman, and occult." I'm afraid "abnormal" and "occult" will ring in the uninformed reader's head. "Spiritual," in the Mormon sense, may have to be explained, but I suspect the word implies aspects of worship and reverence for most people. Spiritual Manifestations?? Religious Manifestations?? Visionary Manifestations?? Shall we ask for some other suggestions on the talk page? WBardwin 06:33, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

You guys have already covered why supernatural is not an ideal choice; too many connotations in the sphere of the occult. If we are voting, I would vote for spiritual experience. Cogden, your comments regarding "spiritual experience" address the depth or quality of the experience. I would think you handle that issue by further explanation of the experiences i.e. angelic manifestations, etc. I would also be careful about writing from a Mormon perspective (how a Mormon would interpret the lingo). We seek to write so that the majority of people will understand what is said. You guys to excellent work and I appreciate your efforts. Storm Rider 14:47, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I think the term spiritual experiences doesn't really cover things like seer stones, divining rods, or visits by angels and other heavenly beings, which were an important part of Smith's, Cowdery's, and others' earliest connections to the divine. Outside of Mormonism, the term spiritual has either of two connotations, neither of which fit: (1) something involving spirits or apparitions, as in spiritualism, or (2) something involving the soul, or religion. The term doesn't fit as it is used inside Mormonism either, where the term spiritual generally refers to "feeling the Spirit"; for example, "my mission was a very spiritual experience", or "I had a spiritual experience in the temple". If somebody describes a visitation of an angel, or use of a seer stone or divining rod as a spiritual experience, it is not because it's supernatural, it's because of how they felt the Spirit when the angel came, or the stone or rod showed them the mind of God. Therefore, I don't think the term is appropriate to describe the much more miraculous, supernatural events of early Mormonism. Supernatural isn't perfect, but I can't think of anything more neutral or accurate; besides, seer stones and dowsing rods already have a linkage to the occult no matter what word we use. COGDEN 20:52, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Cogden, how do you overcome the connotation of the occult that natuarally goes with supernatural? When we seek for terms that are neutral this would seem not to come out too high on the list. Further, it is not a term often associated with angelic visitations. What comes to mind is St. Bernadette at Lourdes, or Fatima, and Medjugorje; none of these use the term supernatural, but rather visionary. I would agree that this term (visionary)does not cover the scope associated with the spiritual manifestations accorded/used by Joseph Smith.

I remain uncomfortable with the term supernatual being used. Do you think you could use visionary, but then elaborate and explain the full breadth of experiences of Joseph. When you speak of seer stones, divining rods, and the early history of the church, it is also helpful to remember that these were only used for a very short time. I guess it depends on what you are tyring to emphasize; if it is divining rods and seer stones then magical and supernatural may be appropriate. If you wish to emphasize angelic visitions, visions, and revelation, then visionary may be most appropriate.

Why don't you propose language and let's comment and move; we may just be straining at gnats while camels are swallowed elsewhere. Storm Rider 22:40, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I've been thinking about it some more, and I think I may have few ideas to move us in the right direction. I'll make the changes, and then people can comment. COGDEN 19:45, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

What about "divine manifestations?" That incorporates angelic visitations as well as theophanies. -Visorstuff 20:45, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Manifestations is good. But divine implies God, and the most significant early happenings in Mormonism weren't all manifestations of God himself. They were also manifestations of angels, and of truth or words via the seer stones. What about heavenly manifestations or charismatic manifestations? I think these would also include Smith's role as a seer and a translator. COGDEN 23:12, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Although not perfect, "heavenly manifestations" should cover about everything likely to be addressed in this article. Once we decide on a term, it might be a good idea to use it consistently on other articles dealing with visions, dreams, manifestations, etc. WBardwin 00:00, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

"Supernatural" is more accurate, clinical and neutral? UGH! What world do you live in, COgden? It is hardly so and less so than "spiritual experiences" which is much more inclusive than the spin you put on it without the baggage to boot. I totally disagree that "the term spiritual experiences doesn't really cover things like seer stones, divining rods, or visits by angels and other heavenly beings". —B|Talk 23:15, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

(Welcome back BoNoMoJo - we've missed you. It's good to have you back around - hope it's permanent. -Visorstuff 23:18, 9 September 2005 (UTC) )

Thanks, just kinda stopping by, V. I want to clarify that I don't necessarily support "spiritual experiences" so much as I object to "supernatural". As trendy or applicable as "supernatural" may be used in "objective" literature in regards to religions or other ideologies besides Mormonism, that term really fails to capture one of the distinguishing marks of Mormonism: namely, that in Mormonism, the divine is immanent in the universe and not transcendent of it as is found, for example, in mainstream Christianity. Certain types of "spiritual experiences" in Mormonism may be extraordinary and rare, but they are not "un"-natural or "super"-natural; in Mormonism, the divine is not materially-other-worldly. It is even around us even though humans may not have the capacity to percieve that. Humans don't directly perceive, e.g., x-rays, but that doesn't make x-rays any less natural or more supernatural. —B|Talk 16:35, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

That's a good point. I think I'm persuaded against supernatural. The best terms I like thus far are heavenly manifestations and charismatic. I have mixed feelings about the word magical. I would have preferred to simply use charismatic, but charismatic doesn't quite describe the early use of seer stones and divining rods to obtain revelation. I would say that Smith's revelation began as mostly magical (with the exception of the first vision), and then gradually became mostly charismatic by about 1835. By about then, or maybe before, I understand most of his revelations simply came to him as a spiritual gift, without the need for any form of crystal gazing. COGDEN 17:18, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Seer Stones

I was reseraching seer stones and came up with the following:

SEER STONE NOT USED IN BOOK OF MORMON TRANSLATION.

We have been taught since the days of the Prophet that the Urim and Thummim were returned with the plates to the angel. We have no record of the Prophet having the Urim and Thummim after the organization of the Church. Statements of translations by the Urim and Thummim after that date are evidently errors. The statement has been made that the Urim and Thummim was on the altar in the Manti Temple when that building was dedicated. The Urim and Thummim so spoken of, however, was the seer stone which was in the possession of the Prophet Joseph Smith in early days. This seer stone is now in the possession of the Church.

While the statement has been made by some writers that the Prophet Joseph Smith used a seer stone part of the time in his translating of the record, and information points to the fact that he did have in his possession such a stone, yet there is no authentic statement in the history of the Church which states that the use of such a stone was made in that translation. The information is all hearsay, and personally, I do not believe that this stone was used for this purpose. The reason I give for this conclusion is found in the statement of the Lord to the Brother of Jared as recorded in Ether 3:22-24.

These stones, the Urim and Thummim which were given to the Brother of Jared, were preserved for this very purpose of translating the record, both of the Jaredites and the Nephites. Then again the Prophet was impressed by Moroni with the fact that these stones were given for that very purpose. It hardly seems reasonable to suppose that the Prophet would substitute something evidently inferior under these circumstances. It may have been so, but it is so easy for a story of this kind to be circulated due to the fact that the Prophet did possess a seer stone, which he may have used for some other purposes.

(Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 3 vols., edited by Bruce R. McConkie [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954-1956], 3: 225.)

Cogden's most recent edits regarding folk magic etc. goes too far, introduces new concepts and is not referenced. There is no discussion of the Urim and Thummim, its use in the Old Testament, or the Book of Mormon. Nor is there a discussion of the seer stone possessed by Joseph and what purpose he used it. Though I am familiar with much of the literature from our friendly Anti-Mormons, the above statements from JFS seem to counter them. I do not say they are a final word, but before we start stating things regarding seer stones, etc. and how and when they were used, they need to be referenced. Magical is not a term I would use for the use of the U&T in the Old Testament and I would certainly not use it for Joseph and the translation of the Book of Mormon. Storm Rider 23:21, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

We are dealing with a number of parallell developments in Joseph Smith's life. There was more than one seer stone, in addition. What is the purpose or function of a Urim and Thummim? Could not a stone be considered as thus? Or is it already? (One church publication says "Urim and Thummim—'seer' stones fastened to a breastplate" [1], [2]) I think that Smith found great ability to see things in the stone, but his statements in regard to the U&T was much strongers - as he told his mother he could see anything throough the U&T. It does not make sense that he would go back to using something as you put it - "inferior." Also, when looking at the records or people who witnessed the translations, you do have references to the seer stone, the U&T and priesthood revelation being used. It is interesting to note that the U&T was the source of the revelations in the D&C until the priesthood was restored (section 13) then, the source of revelation came directly through the keys fo the priesthood that smith held, rather than the U&T. Obviously the seer stone, the U&T and the keys of the priesthood all accomplished the same thing, but each was stronger than it's predacessor. .

The person who best reflects Martin Harris is probably Edward Stevenson, since he spent nearly two months with the Witness after going to Ohio to escort him back to Utah in 1870. On the means of translation Stevenson reported, “He said that the Prophet possessed a seer stone, by which he was enabled to translate as well as from the Urim and Thummim, and for convenience he then used the seer stone.” 4

After Martin Harris lost the part of the translation done in 1828, Oliver Cowdery became chief scribe for the entire Book of Mormon as it is now printed. Toward the end of this new work of 1829, David Whitmer on occasion watched and afterwards spoke of the seer stone. 5 Yet as an intimate assistant, Oliver Cowdery stressed the Urim and Thummim in his statements. While editor of the Church newspaper in 1834, he made the comment already quoted on the inspiration of writing for Joseph Smith. [3]

The relationship of the seer stone, the U&T and how they were used in BOM translation are discussed in the Ensign (a hidden source of knowlege for the Saints) here: [4], [5], [6],

I agree that COGDENs edits are extreme, but there is some basis to them. He is taking information from Jan Shipps work it appears (I hope I'm right COGDEN, if not is it Quinn and who else?). We should dumb it down to what is factual and what is speculative though. On original source documents they are scarce. On historian hearsay and theory there is much more, as COGDEN has introduced. A fine line, but it is a line. Let me know when you get a chance to review the ensign articles above and let me know how that changes your opinion Storm Rider. -Visorstuff 00:09, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Visor, thanks for the links; excellent reading. There is no doubt that Joseph possessed a seer stone; the LDS church claims to be in possession of the stone. It existed and as used, but based upon the articles you linked it is not known how it was used. In regards to the translation of the Book of Mormon, Joseph's statements are that it was translated by the gift and power of God and by the Urim and Thummimmum. He appears never to have stated he used "the" seer stone in translation. I agree with you that there needs to be a clear delination between what is factual and what is speculative. Whitmer's comments on translation are speculative; he never translated and does not know though he is recorded as having stated that he knew a process of translation. At this point I continue to research if there was a confusion by those not intimately involved between the seer stone and the Urim and Thummimmum. Are you aware if anyone has writtin about that possiblity? JFS proposition that it would be odd for Joseph to have use of the U&T from the very beginning, something the God specifically intended for Joseph to use in transaltion, and revert to use of a seer stone of unknown origin. Storm Rider 13:02, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

The section obviously need a lot of filling-out with citations and more specific information. I think we would be taking a step backwards, though, if we start citing to Joseph Fielding Smith's interpretation of the Book of Ether, at the expense of historical sources. It's also not really our job to weigh credibility of sources, only to include factual information that might reflect the sources' credibility. But I'm not sure if this article should get so detailed as to recount everybody's statements on the translation process. This article is more of an institutional history, and maybe there should be some sort of Revelations of Joseph Smith, Jr. article. But I'm not sure what article to put that in. Here, we should basically outline the various historical sources, and maybe mention some of the apologetic interpretations such as that of Joseph Fielding Smith. COGDEN 04:45, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Cogden, I am not sold on JFS statements, but I can certainly appreciate his logic. Further, credible sources are significant to me. I do not favor the sometimes quoted WIKI policy of, "If it is written somewhere, then it is appropriate to quote". I see that policy leading too easily carried to extremems resulting in articles that are worthless for the common reader.

I would suggest an appropriate place for revelations be the article on the prophecies of Joseph Smith. It would help widen the scope of that article and provide some interesting information to readers.

Cog, would you describe the staff of Moses as magical? Or would you describe the white stone described in the book of Revelations that all disciples are to receive as magical? Or would you describe the spring at Lourdes, France as magical becuase it has healed people? Are Icons that have been identified as producing miracles magical? If we wish to describe religious items in such a way as to be offensive to believers, yes we could describe them as magical. The problem is that none of the groups that believe would ever use "magical" as a descriptor. Magic has no basis in their blief system and denies their God. When we use the term magic to describe Mormon history we are disrepspectful of the Mormon religion and Mormon beliefs. In fact, we allude to things that have nothing in common with Mormonism, but rather cast Mormon beliefs in a shroud of evil. Every other Christian religion would not tolerate the use of magic to describe anything in their belief system and I don't see why it is acceptable to describe Mormonism in such a way unless our objective is to discredit. If that is the objective it is POV and does not belong. Storm Rider 17:10, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I like the idea of adding that information to the Prophecies of Joseph Smith article, although it would have to be renamed to something like Revelations of Joseph Smith. On whether or not the above things are magical, I'd say no, technically they are charismatic. But from a purely naturalistic perspective, there is little difference between what is magical and what is charismatic. It's a fine line, I will admit, but an important one nevertheless. If I had to choose a word for Smith's early use of seer stones to obtain revelation, I'd call it charismagic, because he used the same crystal gazing technique to translate the Book of Mormon as he previously used to do clearly magical things like locate hidden treasure or lost items. On the other hand, there's not much difference between receiving a revelation through a crystal, and receiving it without a medium, although a medium-less revelation would probably be described more as charismatic. The difference between the terms charismatic and magic is simply a historical one. I disagree that the use of the term magic is disrespectful. It was just the perfectly-respectable (for its time) way in which Smith was able to make his connection with the divine. I'm open to suggestions, though, if you can think of a better word to describe crystal gazing and the use of divining rods than magic. COGDEN 17:51, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Interesting question about the word magic - would Christians be alarmed of claims that Jesus used magic when healing the blind man with mud - if you introduced the concept into the Jesus article?? -Visorstuff 19:00, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

But would anybody dispute the use of the term magic to describe Smith's use of crystal gazing to locate buried treasure and lost items? If that is magic, then I find it hard to say his use of crystal gazing to translate the Golden Plates was not magic. I'm still looking, though, for a better word, if one exists. At least the word magic is way better than the word occult. COGDEN 19:17, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

I'm only playing devil's advocate at this point, as I'm not sure what the answer is. But when you look at this history: viewing things through a stone(s), bones from a dead person, talismans, coats or cloth with supernatural properties, holy liquids (oil, water), translations or renderings of ancient documents not physically available, supernatural events happening by the lunar/solar astrological calendars, "convenient" revelations, and more, do you think of Joseph Smith first or do you think of the old testament first (Aaron - U&T, Elisha's bones, Josesph of Egypt, Solomon's temple, Ezra the scribe, birth of David, Solomon, Moses, Christ, statements or revelations of Zarabubell, Haggai, Elijah, Elisha, Jermiah and Moses)? I see more parallells between Smith's magic and Kabblah or Jewish folklore than I do in other forms of "magic." (especially magick or magic as defined by the Occult or Wicca, etc communities) Religion is magic. Miracles are magic. Sects are cults. But what is the connotation for which? Does it depend solely on the acceptance of the practice? Smith was involved in the "restoration of all things" that had truth - including many things that are condemned by current social norms, including astrology, divination, Crystallomancy, and polygamy. They may or may not have even seemed strange 200 years ago, but are now. What would be a better word? Why do we shy away from "supernatural?" -Visorstuff 19:51, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Cogden, you dodged the question and I would like to hear your answer. Would you describe the other situations as magic? Turning a staff into a snake sounds like magic to me, but would you describe Moses' use of his staff as magic. Jesus' use of mud healing a blind man sounds pretty wierd to me; that has got to be magic. I know in Voodoo that spit can have some interesting properties; maybe instead of magic we should just say that Jesus also practiced Voodoo.

I also see a distinct difference from Joseph's experiences as a young man and Joseph's life as a prophet for the Latter Day Saint movement. You seem to want to group that together. I would think they are separate issues and belong in separate articles. Your comments belong in the article on Joseph Smith not the Movement. Storm Rider 20:03, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Storm Rider, I do not see a distinct difference in Joseph's young life experiences and his calling to be prophet. One led to the other. His natural ability at Crystallomancy and dream interpretation made him a natural to use Urim & T and recieve and understnad visions and revelations. It was a stepping stone. He may have seen them as unrelated events at the time, but as he matured, he must've seen them as a teaching mechanism. I am, however, interested in Cogden's response as well. -Visorstuff 21:10, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I think that Moses' turning his staff into snakes is clearly magic. In fact, in trying to duplicate it, Pharaoh turned to his "sorcerers" and "magicians", who according to Exodus, "also did in like manner with their enchantments." (Ex. 7:11). So if Moses and the magicians were doing the same "enchantments", why would we call one magic, and the other something else? It's the same act, except one was performed by the power of YHWH, while the other was supposedly performed by the power of other, inferior gods.

The faith healing by Jesus you could call magic, but for historical reasons, faith healing in Christianity is generally referred to as charismatic. Basically, anything that Jesus or the apostles did, like healing, glossolalia, and exorcism, etc. was charismatic, while anything that the "heathen" did, like crystal gazing, use of divining rods, astrology, or transmutation of substance, is magic, even if it's essentially the same class of things. Joseph Smith sort of straddles the line between the two. COGDEN 23:04, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

If "historical" reasons means it is culturally unacceptable to call it magic, then I agree with you. Without defining it, you seem to delinate between the heathen and those that follow God or Christ. However, I don't see the ambiguity you obviously see between Joseph and other Christians. Everything Joseph did he testifies that he did by the power of God. He never professed to be a magician or sorcerer. I think what you are trying to say is that Joseph's use of items, such as the Urim and Thummim and a seer stone, were atypical to the era, but to use terms such as magic denies the authority which he stated he used. A heathen asserts this powers come from dieties, spirits, and the powers of the earth, netherworld, etc. A Christian states his power comes from God. This is a major, significant difference and should not be confused. Can you see why this terminology is so offensive and inappropriate?

As an aside, charismatic is unfamiliar in the way you describe it. The modern term is most often used to describe charismatic movements/churches that seek direct, personal spiritual experiences that are ecstatic in nature, such as speaking in tongues, prophecy, and healings. Assemblies of God and Pentacostal churches come foremost to mind. Yes, there is similarity between the acts of the apostles after the day of Pentacost, but only in the manifestations of spiritual gifts. However, I thought it was a modern day phenomena, no? Storm Rider 00:25, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

No, I'm saying the exact opposite. What Smith was doing was very typical for his era, and they didn't see much difference between the use of seer stones and glossolalia. It's only because sectarian clergy from the mid-1800s started classifying what Smith did as occult, whereas what the Holiness and Pentecostals were doing was charismatic. But we're stuck with the terminology. I don't think we can change the meaning of charismatic simply by asserting that the use of seer stones was charismatic, rather than magical. Gradually, I think the early church moved away from the magical and toward the charismatic. By 1836, if you were at the Kirtland Temple dedication, you would have seen speaking in tongues, interpretation of tongues, people seeing angels and visions, hearing voices, exorcisms, faith healing, etc., which are all clearly charismatic. COGDEN 01:46, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

NO! We do not have to use the terminology of other clergy simply because they wish to describe us in a certain manner. We don't accept the definition of orthodox Christianity for Trinity, but much of concept is acceptable; we just refuse to use their terminology.

You continue to want to use the terminology, but give no background of the terms. If they were common concepts of the era as you claim it would be appropriate to first introduce those concepts and explain how they were common. But to just state that Joseph used "magical" items is not acceptable. As Visor and I have explained and you have admitted those terms are not acceptable for Christ and the rest of characters in scripture.

Cogden, characmastic is a term of the modern era. I have never heard the term applied to Christ; the term has too much baggage as with most of terms you continue to want to use. Rather than state that something was charismatic, just state what was so...At the Kirkland temple one saw... You leave to much to the reader to interpret by simply saying it was a charasmatic experience. Having attended a number of charasmatic meetings in the south, I can assure you that there was little in common with the experience described by those who witnessed the Kirkland experience from both inside and those outside. They are drastically different.

You go too far. Your terms are demeaning and POV and I find them wholly unacceptable. I have kept my edits to this page until tonight while you continued to make changes to the article. Though I appreciate your boldness, some of the edits were not acceptable and I deleted them. I am not interested in a revert war and hope to contain further edits to this page.

I have no problem with the characterizations you have added, but I'll probably eventually reintroduce and expand the information on Smith's use of seer stones, with citations, because they were such an important part of the very early church, and they play such a prominent role in Mormon scripture. COGDEN 00:42, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Cogden, I really hated the revert because it could appear that my intent was to whitewash an uncomfotable subject. I believe it should be added back in. I am not as convinced as you that seer stones and the like played such a prominent role, but it certainly played a role. I hope you will add some background so that readers can understand the role of spiritual objects throughout the God's history of dealing with man. Though this article's subject is different some foundation would be helpful. Storm Rider 05:20, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Johnson Farm

I know, from growing up near Hiram, Ohio, that the Johnson Farm figures prominently in the history of the LDS movement in Ohio. However, I'm not nearly knowledgeable enough about that part of the history to attempt an edit. Any takers? -- SwissCelt 20:39, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

The Johnson Farm was where Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon were tarred and feathered. This story has been given numerous tellings (Newell and Avery, Mormon Enigman, 41-44, and Van Wagoner, Sidney Rigdon, 114-118 are others). The basics are as follows and quoted from Bushman's Joseph Smith, Rough Stone Rolling, 178:

"In early 1832, oppositino took a violent turn. On Saturday, March 24, Joseph was dragged from his bedroom in the dead of night. His attackers strangled him until he blacked out, tore off his shirt and drawers, beat and scratched him, and jammed a vial of poison against his teeth until it broke. After tarring and feathering his body, they left him for dead. Joseph limped back to the Johnsons' house and cried out for a blanket. Through the night, his friends scraped off the tar until his flesh was raw." Motivations for this event as recounted by Symonds Ryder, I believe a participant in the event, felt that Joseph was plotting to take property from its members and he was determined not to allow it to continue and without impunity. Accordingly, a company of citizens was gathered from surrounding communities and proceeded to the Johnson home to rid the country of Smith.

The critical historian Fawn Brodie (No Man Knows, 119) speculated that one of John Johnson's sons, Eli, meant to punish Joseph by having him castrated for an intimacy with his sister Nancy Marinda Johnson, but that hypothesis fell for lack of evidence.

Hope this helps. Storm Rider 17:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

What of the parts of the Doctrines and Covenant that were authored in Hiram? -- SwissCelt 19:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Visor, do you have a handle on this? There were several revelations attributed to being received in Hiram, but I don't know a source I can immediately turn to for confirmation of all of them. Storm Rider 20:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The revelations received in Hiram, Ohio as recorded in the D&C are the sections as follows: 1, 65, 67-70, 73-74, 76, 81, 99, and 133. Joseph and Emma lived here from September 1831 to September 1832. ALso, Joseph and Sidney Rigdon worked on the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible (JST) here. Storm Rider 20:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

This link provides a good run down of where D&C sections are attributed to have been given [7]. This list places sixteen sections in Hiram Ohio, 46 at or near Kirtland, one in Thompson Ohio, one in Orange Ohio and one in Amherst Ohio. There is evidence that portions of revelations were recieved in different Ohio locations, including Hiram, but the completed revleation was given in Kirtland or other places. Hope that makes sense. Hiram was a noteable place for a number of reasons. Hope this helps. -Visorstuff 20:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Cool! Would one of you care to add this info to the article? I'll gladly add something to Hiram, Ohio afterwards, once I have a handle on the village's importance in LDS history. -- SwissCelt 05:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Martyrdom

The definition of martyr as listed on WIKI is:

Historically, a martyr is a person who dies for their convictions or religious faith, such as during the persecution of early Christians in the Roman Empire. Sometimes the term is applied to those who use violence, such as dying for a nation's glory during wartime (usually known under other names such as "fallen warriors"). The death of a martyr is called martyrdom.

Stating that someone died a Martyr or their death was a martyrdom is not POV if their death fits the definition. However, denying the term applies to Joseph Smith most certainly is POV and demonstrates the POV of the editor. Further, if the term were inappropriate for this article it would necessarily be denied for every article on WIKI. Storm Rider 01:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't try to tar me with the POV label. That I believe neutral point of view language should be used in place of more forceful language wherever possible does not demonstrate my POV; frankly, I'm ambivalent as to whether Smith is truly a martyr or not. But because there is some controversy surrounding the death of Joseph Smith, Jr., there likewise will not be agreement that Smith was a martyr. That's fine; we can say (as is stated in the main article about Smith's death), "Many consider him a martyr for his beliefs" in the section itself. Entitling the section, "The martyrdom of Joseph Smith", however, demands the POV that we acknowledge Smith as a martyr. That's not the function of Wikipedia, sorry. -- SwissCelt 02:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Nope, not trying to tar you with POV label (though we all have a POV, so it would not be off the mark for any of us), but the concept/principal you are presenting may have that taint. Is the death of an individual appropriate to be called martyrdom only if one is a follower of the given religion? It seems to be, given the defnition above, that one's personal beliefs has no determination on the term's merit. If one died for their beliefs, the are a martyr. It doesn't mean that I have to be Catholic to recognize that many of their saints were martyrs; they died for their beliefs. The same could be said of many of the followers of Islam or any other religion. If this is true, are we using a double standard when it comes to Joseph Smith? Storm Rider 03:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think the distinction lies in how the person dies, and the motivations of those who kill that person (if anyone). Martyrdom appears, to me at least, to demand that the person be murdered first. No one has been convicted of murder; thus, we don't know the motivations of those who killed Smith, or even (technically speaking) if he was killed by someone else. It would be difficult to state that Smith died for his beliefs if he died, for example, as a result of an accident. Again, though, martyrdom is a verifiable claim with which I have no problem in the body of the section. Just not the title, as that precludes other possible explanations for Smith's death. -- SwissCelt 04:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

We may actually be agreeing on the outcome, but we arrive there for different reasons. Whether or not Martyrdom is used in the title is not a imperative or significant issue for me. However, from your reasoning above I get the impression that you may not be aware of the circumstances of his death. His death is well documented, was not an accident, and was effected by those hostile to the Joseph Smith and Mormons in general. The following are verifiable facts: Papers around Nauvoo had published on multiple occaisions a call to arms to exterminate the Mormon people for their beliefs. This was after the they were expelled from Missouri after the Gov. first issued a Mormon Extermination order. He was in the Carthage jail when it was attacked by over 100 men. Smith was shot multiple times from both front and back causing his death. Six men were arrested but were found not guilty because the court felt it could not put blame on these six men given the number of men who were attacked the jail. Lastly, Joseph may have been a mayor and a presidential candidate (only because his repeated pleas to the Federal government for aid were ignored and by running for the presidency he felt he could get the unjust treatment of the people on a national stage), but he was and is known for being a prophet and founder the the Latter Day Saint movement. You seem to feel there is a question about "if" Joseph was killed by others; he certainly did not kill himself. Joseph was a lightening rod for the doctrines he taught. His teaching of plural marriage was particularly repugnant to those outside of the faith as well as to those inside the church causing several to fall away. Storm Rider

That said, SwissCelt, there was a trial where number of people were tried for the "murder" of Smith and his brother. Obviously, people at the time thought he was murdered. In addition, was anyone "convicted of murder" for the death of Joan of Arc. Peter? Yet they are considered Martyrs. This seems like a strange argument to me. -Visorstuff 18:35, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

You appear to presume that I would consider them martyrs as well. Let's not assume a POV for me, please. I'm simply stating that the title of "martyr" may not be so incontrovertible as to allow its use in a section title. -- SwissCelt 13:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

SwissCelt, you seem to insist that the term martyr is a subjective term and based upon one's personal belief. I contend that the definition has nothing to do with personal belief. I agree with you that one can dispute whether Smith died for his beliefs, you seem to think that his death was anything from a suicide to an unknown event. I am just trying to get a better understanding of your reasoning besides it is not appropriate. Can you share a little more of your thoughts? Storm Rider 17:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Gladly. The term martyr is somewhat subjective; to die for one's beliefs means that those who killed that person are opposed to those beliefs, while the would-be martyr died so that the beliefs might be advanced as a principle. For example, would we consider Tupac Shakur to be a martyr? We might, but I'm sure we'd need more explanation than a single title (i.e. "The martyrdom of Tupac Shakur") can convey. -- SwissCelt 20:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no doubt that those who killed Joseph Smith were against his beliefs. Smith had a long history of being pursued by "trumped" up charges. When he was murdered he was originally charged with one charge that was dismissed and then was charged with treason. It was known at the time that Carthage was a death trap for Joseph and the various militias were cooperating to kill him. Tupac is an interesting character to compare to Joseph Smith. Whereas Tupac had a long history of fighting against a system he identified as oppressive, there was no formal movement to which he belonged. Joseph on the other hand was the founder of a religion that had suffered through a multitude of death threats for most of his life. Remember, he was 14 years old when he first began proclaiming to be lead by God. He never denied his visions. However, thanks for sharing your thoughts. Storm Rider 20:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Thomas B. Marsh

"The perceived militant attitude adopted by the church caused some leaders, including Thomas B. Marsh, president of the Quorum of the Twelve, to break with Smith and Rigdon"

I thought Marsh left primarily over the issue with his wife? The Jade Knight 05:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

"Divining Rods", pre-church "preisthood" and "Secret Combinations"

Doctrine and covenants 8:3 does not state in any way that Oliver Cowdry had a divining rod. Also, the LDS church believes itself to be a restored gospel. Although visions and miracles do occur without the preisthood, outright authority was not present in Cowdry or Smiths families prior to the restoration. Also, a "Council of the Fifty", a supposed secret church orginization of the Mormons, would contradict LDS doctrine merely by existing. The Book of Mormon clearly states that there should be no "secret combinations among you". My edit may require fine tuning and gramatical changes, but is still based on three solid facts:

1. D&C 8:3 says nothing about divining rods, proven at www.LDS.org
2. "Secret Combinations" are abhored throughout the entire Book of Mormon.
3. Joseph Smith Senior was a farmer, righteous but did not have the preisthood, divination, or similar mystical qualities that he could summon at his own will.

I do not have a Username yet, but I will get one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.177.146 (talk • contribs)

Welcome to the Wikipedia. Please let us know what your username is. In response to your comments, the statement that Oliver Cowdery had the gift of using the "rod of nature" was in the Book of Commandments, and then the language was modified when the revelation was included in the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants. Regarding the Council of Fifty, its existence is well-documented by scholars both inside and outside the church, and I don't think Smith, Young, or any of the leaders thought of it as a "secret combination". The Council itself was not really secret. The only thing that could arguably be called a "secret combination" might have been the Danites, but that was never a formal or quasi-formal church body, just a group of Mormon extremists. COGDEN 17:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

To the anonymous user - you should read up on Mormon History, because although you won't find church sources admitting it outright, the fact is that there is a good amount of evidence that Joseph Smith used divining rods, and other mystical methods in his treasure seeking. He was even tried in court, where one witness testified quite vehemently that he could find treasure with a divining rod.--Descartes1979 (talk) 21:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Membership is 4-Million, not 12!!!

The 12 million world-wide membership number is claimed by the Mormons but has been proven bogus. The Salt Lake Tribune has released several well documented articles over the past few years showing a world-wide membership around 4 million, and declining. http://www.sltrib.com/search/ci_2886596

The 2000 census in Mexico is a good example. The Mormons claim 1.2 million members, yet the census showed only 205,000. http://www.allamericanpatriots.com/m-news+article+storyid-16344.html

The Salt Lake Tribune articles show that the Mormons have a habit of falsifying there data. The membership number should be changed to a verifiable source. http://www.sltrib.com/search/ci_2886596 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.251.92 (talk • contribs)

Hi Anon from California. When you consider that Scientology and Jehovah Witnesses count how many people visit their museum or attend their meetings, and Catholics count everyone who has been baptized as a child, I'd still say that Mormon numbers are very acccurate as compared to almost every other church. At least we don't count investigators. Please see the archived discussion at The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints which covers this topic in depth, as it is probably much more accurate than these report lend. I for instance am considered evangelical not Mormon, as Latter-day Saint wasn't an option in my census interview. Also, when you consider the affiliation of the entire Latter Day Saint movement (unhyphenated) you are probably looking at a group between 18 and 20 million. -Visorstuff 17:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Visorstuff. I think you are using a different standard for this topic than you are for any other issue. If an astrologist made a claim and said it was true becasue the horoscope said it was true, would you consider it factual? Listen to your own argument: your saying its OK to list bogus statistics becasue everyone else is doing it too. Is this an encyclopedia or just a place to pass on dogma in the disguise of fact? Your argument breaks a basic Wiki rule on verifiability, particularly regarding self-published sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

I read your user profile. You claim to be NPOV, and an acurate historian, yet your webpage is riddled with clear bias. Why do you feel that religion should get a free ride? On your page you say "I have no reason to doubt the Joseph Smith, Jr. story, the Fatima story, the Joan of Arc story, the Moses account or some Gnostic writings." Huh??? How can you be a historian if you have "no reason to doubt" someones story? Did you ever take Debate 101 in high school? Have you even read the standards for verifiability? You state that "I am a believer that when it comes to matters of faith, multiple coincidences add up to be evidence." Would you support this logic in the belief of the power of wigi-boards? You should really read one of Sam Harris' books. The data on Wiki is supposed to be verifiable back to credible sources, self-published sources are not viable according to Wiki standards or anyone elses. I'll take the governemnts data anyday over a churches.

I am glad that you support WIKI policy and standards; let's start out by giving up personal attacks. I also appreciate the wonderful sources you use to demonstrate verifiability...the Seattle Times (newspapers have such a steller history of being fair and objective) and the Mexican government. You trust government statistics? Just curious, but does everyone always answer factually and is every person offered the opportunity to answer factually.

Another way to "get to the facts" is to review the number of buildings being built by the LDS church. Given that the church funds all new construction, and being the those evil business men we hear about so often, it would seem logical they would not be wasting money building churches that no one is attending. Just a thought, of course logic is only useful to prove one's own opinion. When it conflicts with those evil projections we put on the evil empire of the LDS church, then what does one do? That's right, forget logic, bury one's head in the proverbial cess pit of personal conjecture and remain firm in one's personal convictions. Now don't we feel better.

I am notorious for being impatient and, at times, even rude when someone is aggressive. I happen not to believe everyhing I read in newspapers or hear on the news; I find them not the best sources of "the way it is". I also do not try to learn truth from polemic writers. One can find reality, but you have to be willing to seek for it and then accept it when you find it; particularly when it hits you between the eyes. Storm Rider ^(talk) 02:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Storm Rider. You are correct about the personal attack. Didn't relize it came accross that way. After re-reading it, it was a bit harsh. My appologies to all. Like yourself, I get a bit "impatient" when people use double-standards in regards to religion and god. It seems that the burdon of proof drops for these topics, and folks accept things simply becasue they feel they its not PC to challenge someones faith. The bottom line is that the same standards for fact checking should be applied, and self-published sources must at-least have one supporting outside source documenting the claim.

A couple of notes on your comments: First of all, the articles listed are from the Salt Lake Tribune, not the Seattle Times. And yes, I would trust the Mexican government over ANY church when it comes to census numbers (or almost any other topic now that it comes to mind), and I would be correct according to Wiki standards. Also, I have nothing agaisnt "evil business men", as I am one myself. Also, here is some info regarding the rate of Mormon buildings, which just adds more proof to my point of low membership.

This is from the Salt Lake Tribune article linked at the end of the quote: "Perhaps the best measure of LDS Church growth is the rate of new church units, such as wards (congregations) and stakes (like a diocese). Because they are staffed by volunteers, such units cannot function without enough active members.

In 1980, The Ensign, the LDS Church's official magazine, predicted that membership would grow from 4.6 million members at that time to 11.1 million members in 2000, and from 1,190 stakes to 3,600 in 2000. While the number of members came very close to the projected value, there were 2,602 stakes worldwide at the end of 2002.

"You can use these trends to say that the percentage is slowing, the numbers have leveled off or they are dropping. They tell us what is happening right now," Heaton says." http://www.sltrib.com/search/ci_2890645

Here are some other links as well, and they include some great charts: http://www.sltrib.com/search/ci_2886596, http://www.sltrib.com/ci_2890645 Please read the links!

4 million versus 1 mission

I am not experienced with adding to Wikipedia comments, so I apologize if this is not entered correctly. It seems the proper way to tell the reader the data in an unbiased way is to acknowledge that there are differences in the estimates. E.g., "Estimates for the number of Later-day Saints vary from 12 million estimated by the Church to 4 million estimated by such-and-such newspaper." While editors need to make judgments about whether a given source is a respected and reasonable source to quote, they should not be be decided which of contending but reasonable source is correct. They should report controversy not hide it.

I find that this is an example of the major flaw I see in this article. I find the entire series of articles about the Church of Later-day Saints gives a reasonable presentation of a Mormon view, with great care to not include anything that a memeber of the Church of LDS would disagree with. I would prefer that where there is controversy among respected sources, they both be presented and sourced. I can understand that those who are most interested in this subject are members of the Church and all of us see our own views most clearly. Also, I can understand that no-one wants an Mormon-bashing article where every anti-Mormon prejudice is presented. But there are clearly points of controversy among legitimate historians about the history of the Mormon church, and they do not get addressed.

Say someone read "Under the Banner of Heaven," and thought "How accurate is this book. What is the truth about this or that controversial claim that this book makes? I will check with my faithful, unbiased Wikipedia to see that the serious views on this are." They would find little of use. It would be like a history of the Catholic church that avoided any reference to the buying of indulgences or the Great Schism. The Crusaders sacked the Constantinople, which they were sent to aid, and massacred Moslems. "Witches" were burned in Salem. There are controversies about every religion, not just the Church of LDS, and we should be able to discuss them openly as reasonable and mutually respectful people.

Thank you for considering my opinions.

130.76.32.181 (talk) 00:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC) Joe Hendrickson

Merger proposal

I propose we merge Mormonism and history into this article - likely under a criticism section (based on the critical nature of the content of the other article). Mormonism and history is pretty small, and has been proposed for deletion in the past, but decided to keep. Its just a clunky article - although it has good information. I think it would make a good fit here.

• Merge--Descartes1979 (talk) 21:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral - I am changing my vote to neutral for now, as I am more persuaded by some of the opposing arguments.--Descartes1979 (talk) 07:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Although Mormonism and history is a short, incomplete, and even clunky article, my feeling is that it should be improved and expanded rather than merged with this one. The proposed merger reminds me of the Dickens character in Pickwick who supposedly wrote a piece on "Chinese metaphysics" by reading the Encyclopaedia Britannica "for metaphysics under the letter M and for China under the letter C and combined his information." The history of Mormonism is a different topic than how Mormonism treats history.--John Foxe (talk) 23:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
• Merge I was invited to comment on this page (evidently at some time in the past I did something here). I looked at both articles. The other article's existence makes no sense to me. The merge would be reasonable. --Blue Tie (talk) 00:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Merge - This is a single topic and we too many redundant articles on Mormonism. This makes it difficult for readers to find all related topics and proper depth in some of the ones they do find. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 02:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - This article, as it stands, is fairly narrow in scope, but could be expanded. Certainly Mormonism and History is quite different from the History of Mormonism. While we probably do have "too many" articles on Mormonism, History of the Latter Day Saint Movement can't absorb everything. WBardwin (talk) 01:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per WBardwin & Foxe - this is narrower in scope and does not intend to recount the history of the movement. --Trödel 16:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I need to read some more before voicing an opinion as I just took a superficial glance at it. Count me as 'Neutral now - --Trödel 17:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not the same topics at all. Mormonism and history is not the history of Mormonism. Snocrates 09:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. I do not believe they are the same topics. Sure, they overlap, but they are still distinct and that should remain reflected in two articles. Best, A Sniper (talk) 01:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I also oppose. Since there doesn't seem to be a consensus, I'm going to remove the banner. COGDEN 21:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Verifiabledetails

Verifiabledetails has stated that an edit of mine is possibly vandalism. I just wanted to mention, as I have in several edit summaries of this new user, that they have edited in a flurry over several days, in which countless details have been foisted upon the article that are mostly unnecessary...and most likely in the wrong article. I have written on this editor's talk page suggesting other articles for such detail. The user also needs to be aware of protocols on POV, etc. Having so many edits in such a concentrated period made reverting a little tricky, so of course if I did a wholesale return to a pre-Verifiabledetails time, I may have removed something of merit. For that I apologize. I hope that the new editor will take the time to approach each edit with care, as I will in reverting edits that are sketchy. Best, A Sniper (talk) 00:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

A Sniper, I noted "Verifiabledetails" inappropriate accusation and undid the revision. I also welcome his/her efforts in the encyclopedia, but would assert that a patient informed editor is of more value than an impulsive passionate one, particularly one inclined to throw accusations! In my edit summary, I asked him/her to take concerns to the talk page. I will follow up on "Verifiabledetails" talk page. Best wishes. WBardwin (talk) 04:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

As always, thank you WBardwin. Best, A Sniper (talk) 08:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

To "A sniper": As we discussed on the talk page: I thank you for your first comment indicating that my initial edits were, perhaps, "too much too fast", even though they were in good faith and generally properly cited. Although I was initially shocked that you reverted everything I edited, I agreed with most of what you said, especially with regard to possibly using other articles for such detail. I pointed out that I had never before edited a Wikipedia article, and asked you to forgive me.

I, in turn, accept your apology for your initial removal of "things of merit", as you call them. However, we then had discussion on the talk page about which "things of merit" should be allowed in the article. You responded concerning some of those things, so, once again, I accepted your reversion related to those points. However, you didn't respond concerning two incorrect words contained in the article about the death of Joseph Smith. Those two words are used in a sentence, stating that Joseph Smith was attacked "without resistance". As I pointed out to you before, the separate "main article" on the death of Joseph Smith goes into great detail (all of which is well-documented and cited) about how Joseph Smith used a "six-shooter" handgun, which had been smuggled to him inside the jail, to resist his attackers. In absence of an argument from you with regard to that matter, and in the interest of making the article more accurate, I deleted the two words: "without resistance", and noted the reason in my edit summary. Without relevant explanation, those two incorrect words were added back into the article.

To "WBardwin": You came to the defense of "A Sniper" by adding the two incorrect words back into the article. You left me a message on the talk page telling me that you had done so, you acknowledged that I was totally new to editing, and you warned me that I "...need to learn how this place works." You did not, however, address whether the two words were correct. I replied to your message, thanking you, and asked for comment specifically with regard to the two incorrect words. Although you and "A Sniper" were always very quick to restore the two incorrect words to the article, two days have passed since I have asked for an explanation, and I haven't heard or seen an explanation from anyone. I have indeed been learning how this place works, and I will continue to learn. Quoting directly from Wikipedia:

Explain reverts Shortcut: WP:REVEXP "Revert vandalism on sight, but revert a good faith edit only as a last resort (Emphasis added). Edit warring is prohibited. See three-revert rule. Editors should provide an explanation when reverting.

It is particularly important to provide a valid and informative explanation when you perform a reversion. (Emphasis added) A reversion is a complete rejection of the work of another editor and if the reversion is not adequately supported then the reverted editor may find it difficult to assume good faith. This is one of the most common causes of an edit war. A substantive explanation also promotes consensus by alerting the reverted editor to the problem with the original edit. The reverted editor may then be able to revise the edit to correct the identified problem. The result will be an improved article and a more knowledgeable editor.

As I asked before, please reply specifically with regard to whether you feel that the words "without resistance" are correct or incorrect, with your full reasoning for same. While other comments from you, if civil, are welcome, please do not avoid the issue. Best regards, Verifiabledetails (talk) 18:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't care less whether or not 'without resistance' is in the article, as it isn't an article about JSJr. I thought it was common knowledge that JSJr had been given a small pistol for protection, and used it as the mob advanced. I would be careful in interjecting that guides at Carthage lie about it - that reveals your own POV, doesn't it? When i edited you I was reverting everything, not just that one edit. Take your time. Concentrate on each edit, and give a breather so that other editors can ratify each edit - that is what we do with each other. Best, A Sniper (talk) 23:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

To "A Sniper": Thank you for responding, even though you seem quite upset. Please keep in mind the Wikipdeia guidelines about civility. Obviously, one of us has made a huge error. I am genuinely interested in accuracy in the article about the LDS Movement, and I hope that you are as well. If I am wrong, as I have been to a limited extent in the past, I will immediately dismiss the issue... and apologize, just as I have done in the past. So, please, remain civil. You stated: "I couldn't care less whether or not "without resistance" is in the article, as it isn't an article about JSJr (Joseph Smith, Jr.)." You further stated, "I thought it was common knowledge that JSJr had been given a "small" pistol for protection, and used it as the mob advanced." Which of us is mistaken about who Joseph Smith, Jr. is? Joseph Smith, Jr. is the person whom the LDS Church claims as their prophet, and the person who wrote the Book of Mormon, upon which is the foundation of the LDS Church. Neither the article about the History of LDS movement, or the article about the handgun being used, is about his father, Joseph Smith, Sr., or his son, Joseph Smith, III. Joseph Smith, Jr. is the same person referred to in both the article about the History of the LDS Movement, who, according to the article, was attacked "without resistance", and the article about the Death of Joseph Smith, Jr., which makes clear his resistance via use of the six-shooter handgun. Are you okay? What you said makes no sense. Also, as I expected, you continually make references to my multiple edits which I made last week, and which I have long since dismissed in pursuit of accuracy about this one remaining issue. Your most recent reversions were to my one and only recent edit, which referenced only the two incorrect words: "without resistance". As I said, one of us has made a huge error. Please, let's get this cleared up right away. Please respond. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Verifiabledetails (talk • contribs) 01:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Verifiabledetails (talk) 01:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Please stop your rant. It is very hard to follow your train of thought. Why you are mentioning JSJr, his father and his son, I have no clue. My point is this: I couldn't care less whether or not the article states that JSJr. had a gun, didn't have a gun, or held a bouquet of roses - if you want to make a simple edit removing the term about resisting, GO AHEAD. If editors wish to challenge it, they will, and if you want to bolster it, add the reference. There should be no big deal about this. Getting back to why this whole thing started, you did a dozen edits, adding way too much info to this overview article. I mentioned it, and you responded. End of story. Now go ahead and edit, but please take your time and deal with each edit carefully...and slowly...and check out all the other articles on overlapping subjects. I think this now ends the dialogue on this matter. A Sniper (talk) 02:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Reverted edit by Verifiabledetails yet again -- the editor asserted that a concensus had been reached with User A Sniper on this topic. No significant discussion or any concensus on this modest change is found here. WBardwin (talk) 05:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

POV Tag

This article makes no mention of the relationship btw Freemasonry and the Latter-Day Saint movement. Though the exact nature of this relationship is controversial, there is no doubt that Joseph Smith was a Mason and that there are at least some similarities between Masonic concepts, symbols and rituals and those of the Latter-Day Saint movement. Fi11222 (talk) 16:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I added a small "Masonic Influences" subsection in the part on the origins of the LDS movement. If there are no protests, I will remove the NPOV tag. Fi11222 (talk) 13:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Removed. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 20:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Moroni

Moroni was said to be a Nephite in the Book of Mormon, whereas the Native Americans are said to be descended from the Lamanites. Therefore, Moroni would not be a "Native American" according to the modern definition of the word.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.208.213.99 (talk • contribs) 02:54, 31 January 2011

Please see Moroni (Book of Mormon prophet), Nephite, Lamanite, Genetics and the Book of Mormon, and Historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 23:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Missing Entries?

According to this article, the Mormon church history ceased at about 1860 and then suddenly jumped to modern day. I'd like to know something about the other 150 years that appear to have gone missing. Can anyone complete the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.113.8.138 (talk) 18:46, 18 October 2012 (UTC)