Talk:Joseph Smith/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

FreedominThought's NPOV concerns

I wasn't aware that Wikipedia was about preserving the status quo. The "look and feel" of this article is biased, plain and simple. If that is acceptable and editors are merely publicity hacks with a mission to use Wikipedia as a means of web advertising and in this case, proselytizing Joseph Smith, then I misunderstood the purpose of Wikipedia. Every time anything approaching a real NPOV is posted, it is promptly removed with some meaningless dismissal. You are right about there being another standard for Mormon articles and apparently it is sanitized and redacted history.

--FreedominThought 07:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

It always raises a caution flag when a new editor--FreedominThought (isn't that a cute moniker; so original and impressive; a sign of the true intellectual elite)--comes in parading a "knowledge" of Wiki; almost like a depth of editing experience is possessed. Having been an acutal new editor once I remember distinctly the lack of confidence possessed by a newbie; this editor certainly does not lack chutzpah. One of the downfalls and a strengths of WIKI is that we collectively rely on the intergrity of others. I personally view sock puppets as repugnant, intellectually cowardly and blatantly dishonest.

When you are attempting to edit a new article, here is a clue: don't come into an article and spout critique that does not specifically address what can be changed and why. If you are half the editor you obviously think you are, then gain some tact...a requirement when working with others...propose what you think would improve the article and work to achieve your objectives. If your objective is to stir up contention then you are playing the role of a troll. If you are not a troll welcome to the article your input is appreciated, forget about the diatribes and begin making proposals, suggestions and edits. It is so much easier to work with people than attempt to fight them. Cheers! Storm Rider 07:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Storm Rider! *tsk, tsk* Being an "experienced editor" and "established member of the wikipedia community", you should know better than to BITE the newcomers! Not including myself (though I was only new to the article, not to wikipedia in general), this is the second time I have seen you do this and it is unacceptable. I think that you actually need to take all the advice you just gave to FreedominThought (specifically addressing issues, gain some tact, don't try to stir up contention, don't fight with people, etc). Also, take responsibility for your accusations...who is a sock puppet, and of whom? How is this person trolling? Plus, you need to read wiki policy in a big way...you are again making unfounded personal attacks, owning, and POV pushing. Where is Visorstuff when LDS editors need administrating? bcatt 08:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Bcatt, I thought you had gone away. You have been so quiet for so long and have yet to respond to Visors simple question. Then low and and behold, a new editor with two edits, both of which to this article's talk page, and bang you reappear. Such a coincidence; is that funny how that happens. Almost uncanny; like the stars were aligned...and in the wee hours of the morning. It is also interesting the this very new editor with a surprising understanding of WIKI, but only two edits to their credit, has exactly the same type of approach as you did; not asking questions, no recommendations, just attack the article. The words could almost have come from the same mouth. Coincidences never cease in this life. I wonder if this editor will also completely ignore what editors say and just go off on tangents. I hope this will be more productive and discussion will be limited to the specific changes to the article rather than another complain and attack interaction. I will wait and see. Storm Rider 09:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Like I said...be responsible for your vague accusations (and take your own advice...that too). Since you won't admit to your own accusations, I will make them clear for you. Storm Rider is accusing bcatt of having a sockpuppet called FreedominThought, and is also continuing to accuse bcatt (and the alleged sock puppet) of trolling based on perfectly valid suggestions left on the talk page of this article, as per normal and suggested wikipedia method. Storm Rider is also holding others to a different standard than that he holds himself to by refusing to answer to questions people ask him, yet demanding that others (who have not had their questions answered) respond tirelessly and unfailingly to every single question they are asked. Oh yeah...and by screaming "cabal" after accusing bcatt of doing so after bcatt simply addressed ownership and blatant censorship by a faction. bcatt 09:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to burst your fantasy Storm Rider, I am no "sock puppet". I am not a "troll". Your accusation and treatment of me is completely unprofessional and unexusable. To make it clear to someone of your ilk, I am not bcatt and I don't even know what a bcatt is. I find your personal attacks disgusting and repugnant, in no way appropriate for Wikipedia and certainly not for intellectual discussion. If I am stern with you it is because you have been so free with flinging your disparaging comments you ignorantly don't even realize who you have previously offended. So here is a clue for you: Don't ever accuse me of being "dishonest" and an "intellectual coward". Here is your warning:

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy: There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them.

       * Comment on content, not on the contributor
       * Personal attacks damage the community and deter users.

Note that you may be blocked for disruption.. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thanks

Reasonable edits have been made and promptly deleted without rationality so I am pointing that out. --FreedominThought 10:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

If you are not a sock of someone - then you are the most amazing newcomer I have ever seen - your first edit jumps into a debate using terminology of someone familiar with wikipedia. Additionally all your edits as of 10:45 20 Feb 2006 were to this page - also very unusual. Of course - accusing users immediately of personal attacks and being POV pushers is also very unusual for a new user. Trödel•talk 12:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, some people, Trodel, like to learn how things work before jumping into it. I myself used Wikipedia for nearly an entire year before making my first edit and was relatively familiar by the time I did. Not all that "amazing", just a specific mode of learning and activity...it's called individuality...not everyone is exactly the same. As to Visorstuffs question, I didn't answer it because it was based on a misrepresentation of how wikipedia and wikiprojects work. Wikiprojects are used for organization on topics that encompass a range of articles, whereas specific articles should be discussed on the appropriate talk page, so that everyone can participate...joining a wikiproject is not compulsory for editing a single article...or even a group of related articles for that matter. I, for one, will not allow myself be manipulated in that way. Now, Storm Rider, are you going to answer the many questions that you have thus far ignored? How about the others that have neglected to answer questions posed to them? bcatt 18:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

"I don't even know what a bcatt is." Hee, hee, hee...-The Scurvy Eye ^{a note?} 03:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC) P.S. Sockpuppetry here seems very, very *Ahem* suspicious. -The Scurvy Eye ^{a note?} 03:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

To her credit, I doubt that Freedom is a sock puppet of bcatt. While bcatt has similar views, her edits and comments have a different feel. Also she has never used blanket accusations against me personally, something which Freedom readily did (see below) - in fact bcatt has been quite civil with me in our discussions and disagreements. When I had asked her at the start of these debates to provide examples, she did so - something that I'd still appreciate hearing from Freedom. So how 'bout it Freedom - would you mind sharing how you see this as being POV? --FyzixFighter 04:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Reverting edits by anonymous editors

Since this has become a slightly volatile subject of late, I should probably provide some rationale for a nearly wholesale revert. Two of the additions were not about Joseph Smith but about the comparison of Mormonism (usually the CoJCoLdS) and mainstream Christianity. The addition to the Expositor paragraph wasn't needed: a lists grievances is in the first sentence and the the link isn't the best - I don't trust a html-ized version, but an actual image or a link to a transcription of it from a neutral source could be used. And the intro trim, while useful, took out a little too much imo. --FyzixFighter 04:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Yet another example of POV violation in this article. IMO, this is blatant removal of NPOV to preserve bias. The article clearly attempts a POV association with Christianity which is completely misleading as to common acceptance.

And why let history get in the way of the Mormon POV while we're at it. Let's delete references to historical documents that are not Mormon as they are embarrassing. I would say excuse the sarcasm, but the bias in this article is blatant and the attempts of certain editors to maintain that bias is woefully apparent. Certain insinuative comments and dismissals by various editors have been totally unprofessional.

--FreedominThought 07:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Ex-squeeze me, bacon powder? Did you even look at what my edits were? I did not remove a reference to a historical document that wasn't Mormon. In fact, after Alienus reverted me, I saw that there was possible merit in one of the sentences that I deleted, and reworked it into the appropriate place in that paragraph. Read my comments again - I'm more than willing to have a copy of the Nauvoo Expositor linked to (there's a link to this copy over on that article, and if I were really POV-pushing I would have taken out the paragraph entirely) but, like I said above, I am initially skeptical when the link provided is to a html transcribed version of the document because as an analytical person I know that people at the very least make mistakes when transcribing. IN all honesty, I would mistrust a html-transcription of Einstein's theory of relativity if it wasn't provided by a source with an established credibility and if it didn't provide a scan of the original document.

You're welcome to your opinion, but could you trying to be a wee bit more useful than throwing around blanket accusations of anti-NPOV activity and actually tell us how we are being NPOV. I, as a bit of a newbie, am always open to suggestions on how I can improve, but you're comments are devoid of anything that I can use to improve myself. bcatt, while I disagree with her on some points, was kind enough to provide specific criticism that was the basis for a rather enlightening though at times heated dialogue. --FyzixFighter 13:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

If I misinterpreted your intentions, I apologize. Seeing the vast approach to Mormon redacted and restated history in this article, I simply saw these edits as more of the same. As far as sources, considering nearly all of the sourcing in this article are from Church sources, they are of questionable credibility as well. --FreedominThought 08:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Life In Missour section

Working on this section and have a problem with the following phrase:

The Missouri period was marked by many instances of violent conflict and legal difficulties for Smith and his followers. A recent article (Jan 4, 2006 Kansas City Star) demonstrates the degree to which the courts were biased against Smith's followers.

I don't know who wrote it, but how were the courts biased? The following paragraph mentions how two people were fined 1 penny each for tarring and feathering Mormons, but it does not demonstrate how that applies. Could someone take a look at this. I am unfamiliar with the article quoted. Thanks. Storm Rider 08:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. That article is available at KansasCity.com for $2.95. Search the archives for Joseph Smith in quotation marks, like this: "Joseph Smith". Also, Kansas City is my hometown and I live there today but currently do not have a subscription to the Star. Sorry bro. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 11:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I've found a Google cache of the page. ; ) cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 12:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

To say the courts were biased against Smith cannot be said without reference. It is strongly POV. If it is quoted by a noted historian it would probably be acceptable, but I am uncomfortable with it. I will change the article now to something less POV. Storm Rider 16:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Changes

1. The article was primarily focussed on the finding of the legal documents and how they will be used in the present, I did not see anything supporting the assertion that the article was trying to show the bias of the courts against Smith. Although, even if it was, this is still an example of language geared toward influencing the reader (as per "neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject", "Readers are left to form their own opinions").
2. "Forcibly" in the following paragraph gives the impression of physical removal, if this is not the case, it needs to be reworded to specify clearly how they were dispossessed of their homes & businesses.
3. "agressive mob violence" is terribly redundant and tries to hard to elicit sympathy for Smith
4. "persecution" asserts that Smith and his followers were entitled to move into and take over an area, which in turn asserts Smith's claim that "God had given it to them".
5. How many Danites is "a small group"?
6. I question the use of "Extermination order" as possible "Mormon terminology"...the article sourcd at the beginning of the section comes from a more neutral source and calls it an "expulsion order"

bcatt 12:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

As I thought, "Mormon" and "Expulsion order" were the actual search words used to find the sourced article, the provided link was changed as soon as I posted my feeling that this was a more appropriate term. The original link provided was this. bcatt 12:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the link wasn't even added until after you posted your thing. I changed it because I didn't think the highlighting was paletteable. Still doesn't matter though, as "extermination order" is the commonly accepted term, with 1.5 million Google hits, while "expulsion order" mormon returns something like 300,000. While The Star may be a more "neutral" (and by neutral, I mean less pro-Mormon) source, their use of expulsion order is POV, not any use of extermination order. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 13:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide any non-church sources that refer to it as an extermination order? bcatt 14:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

How about the language of the order itself: "The Mormons must be treated as enemies, and must be exterminated or driven from the State if necessary..." see here for full text. Note that the word expulsion appears no where in the order and is a modern euphamism to introduce a softer POV into Governor Boggs' order. Trödel•talk 00:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

good luck

I managed to upset everyone. I don't plan on sticking around, but if someone wants a third opinion about some subject you can ask me. I'm not LDS, but I'm familiar enough with the subject.

The South Park link is not a source, like I said, but it references documents in the text and gives ideas.

Storm Rider, these edits are great! That's what I was talking about, providing references to different sides of a disputed story. and bcatt's follow up was very reasonable and cleared out some of the POV wording. One more advice, avoid conflict, wikipedia is not worth your soul. Cuñado - Talk 17:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Geez... I take a Wikibreak for two weeks, and find out that I've missed a NPOV dispute, a RfC, and accusations of trolling.

But yeah - this article came a long way since I was gone. Keep up the great work, everyone. --Trevdna 05:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Witnesses

Since this has been through like twenty edits let's discuss it. The people claimed to have seen the plates. This is all that's relevant for this article. To say that they saw them in vision and not in person is POV asserting that things seen "in vision" are less reliable than those seen in person, and also ignores the facts that they saw the plates in vision in person. All we need to do here is say that they said they saw the plates. If the reader is interested, he can read deeper and find that they were seen in vision, and he can also make his own determinations about the intimacy the witnesses had with Smith and the organization of the Church and the legitimacy of material seen in vision. Although it's logical that a group of men whose witnesses are printed in the front of the book they're witnessing would be intimately involved in organizing a Church to go with the book. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 23:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

exactly! Also, any attempt to summarize how the saw, or who saw what, or claimed what - and the distictions in their later life will only result in a POV language - they stated they saw it - they signed documents that they saw it. Leave it at that and then discuss the fascinating details somewhere else. Trödel•talk 23:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm also going to agree that the statement "However, the "three witnesses" claimed to have seen the plates in a vision, not in person, and all eleven were either family or intimately involved in the organization of the Church" has a POV nudge that these are bad things. The intent of bcatt and FreedominThought, if I understand it correctly, is to provide the opposing view to balance the article. Imo this could be satisfied by saying something like "The credibility and neutrality of the witnessed is challenged by those outside of the movement" and let the readers follow the links provided for the additional info. --FyzixFighter 23:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that you did another wholesale revert before "discussing it to avoid mass edits". No, that is not all that's relevant for this article, it leaves out important details, and also actively minimizes the opposing details while expanding on the supporting details in favour of Smith...that's pretty much the exact definition of POV. Fyzix...except that it avoids going into the kind of detail that is gone into in support of Smith...in other words, supportive POV. bcatt 23:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

We want NPOV, not MPOV. It's not neutral to hide relevant facts. If you edit out this text, people would be misled into thinking that the three witnesses actually saw the plates with their own eyes, as opposed to in a religious vision. Does this fact harm Smith? Who cares? To some, a religious vision is more reliable than sight, to others, it's not. It's not our job to judge, just to present enough information to let people judge for themselves. I suggest we leave the text alone. Alienus 23:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, except for your summary comment that "claims" should be left out. This needs to be included, or some substitutive word in its place, because it is, in fact, a claim...visions cannot be proven, they can only be claimed. I can claim that I had a vision in which God told me that Joseph Smith made it all up...and that's just what it would be - a claim. How about "they described seeing the plates in a vision, not in person"? bcatt 00:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, dumb newbie question - what do you mean by MPOV? I think I understand better what you're saying bcatt, but imo the current wording is too slanted towards the other POV. How about a variation on Trödel's compromise for the last sentence: "At least eleven friends and relatives of Smith would state that they had seen the plates either physically or in a vision experience (see Three Witnesses and Eight Witnesses)." The "vision experience" is a bit clunky - maybe religious vision - but the gist is all the information is presented neutrally, and then another sentence about people questioning the credibility and neutrality of the witnesses to still state an opposing view. And AFAIK only Martin Harris said he saw it in an "entranced" state, I can't remember if oliver and david commented on "how" they saw the plates. --FyzixFighter 00:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for suggesting a compromise, which I think is useful. We should leave out all description of how they saw the plates, i.e. replace with "... would state that they had seen the plates." Reasoning: the paragraph isn't about the vision of the prophet Moroni to Harris/Cowdery/Whitmer, but to their physically viewing the plates. Thus, to include the details of the vision experience here would be out of place and would be appropriate if the paragraph stated something like "The angel Moroni, returned to earth and showed the plates to three witnesses." Then adding, "The angel Moroni returned to earth, either physically or in a visionary experience, appeared to three witnesses when they saw the plates." But that is not what the paragraph claims - only that they saw the plates themselves and can vouch that they existed. Trödel•talk 00:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Fyz, there's actually a Mormon-run Wiki where they freely admit that the articles, rather than being neutral and factual, have a Mormon POV, hence MPOV. My point was that this is supposed to be Wikipedia, home of (endless battles over) NPOV, so we can't side for or against Mormonism. We have to state the facts and let people decide.

And an evangelical-run wiki where they admint the articles have a Anti-Mormon POV. What does this have to do with wikipedia. Trödel•talk 00:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Just now, Trödel responded on my talk page, insisting that only one source admitted the witnessing was through a vision. Let's focus on this factual claim. Alienus 00:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Megalomaniacal Point Of View (descrbed here). And, as I have said many times before, the opposing views need fair representation in order to make the article adhere to npov. Throwing it in as offhandedly as possible is not npov. The criticism needs at least as much detail as the support. bcatt 00:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I just re-read Three Witnesses, as per Trödel's suggestion. To be frank, it looks like there's more than enough evidence to allow us to state that the witnesses saw the plates in a vision, not in person. I think we should revert Trödel's most recent change. Alienus 00:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Alienus, I like the suggestion stated earlier; just state the facts. The testimony of the three witnesses states:

"Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That we, through the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, have seen the plates which contain this record, which is a record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites, their brethren, and also of the people of Jared, who came from the tower of which hath been spoken. And we also know that they have been translated by the gift and power of God, for his voice hath declared it unto us; wherefore we know of a surety that the work is true. And we also testify that we have seen the engravings which are upon the plates; and they have been shown unto us by the power of God, and not of man. And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true."

However, I believe it was Martin Harris who later claimed not seeing them with his physical eyes, but seeing them in a vision when being interviewed by a newspaper reporter many years later; I want to say in the 1880's, but can't remember the exact dates. It is not our place to interpret history, but simply to state what others said; particularly when the topic is controversial. Both things should be stated and referenced and leave it to readers. To do anything would seem to attempt to interpret history to a particular POV. Doing so ensures that we are representing a balanced article. Thoughts? Storm Rider 01:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

If the testimony had been that Smith had reached into his trunk and showed them all some golden plates, then a later story about visions would seem out of place. However, it actually speaks about an angel coming down and showing the plates, which is just the sort of thing you expect to see in a vision, making Harris' clarification quite consistent. I think we need to report what Harris said, so as to avoid POV. I'm going to see if I can fit this in neutrally. Alienus 02:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's look at this statement, by the "witnesses" themselves, without all the wordy padding:

unto whom this work shall come: ...we, through...God...and...Jesus Christ, have seen the plates...they have been translated by...God, for his {God's] voice...declared it...we have seen the engravings...upon the plates...by God...not...man...an angel of God...laid before our eyes...the plates...and the engravings...by God...and...Jesus Christ...we beheld and bear record.

In other words: "anyone who reads the book of mormon: all three of us hereby claim that God and Jesus and angels showed us the plates, not a human being".

The article has been unable to provide proof that the plates existed. The closest Smith had to do with showing any of these "witnesses" the plates, was "praying" with the one that previously said he hadn't had a vision. For mormons, this means that Smith gave him the vision...to some others it means that Smith was good at brainwashing and/or intimidating people...and there are many other viewpoints in between.

So, after they supposedly were shown through visions only that the plates existed, then the three were excommunicated...does not say why...but assures that two "still believed the book of mormon" [anyway?]...the third says privately that he doesn't believe in angels...then publicly says he doesn't believe, he knows...then he is accepted back into the church...then one of the two that were previously mentioned to have believed the book of mormon after excommunication gives a detailed account that Smith never physically showed him the plates and said even he (JS) was not allowed to look at them...it was all visions.

Then, after all this, it is asserted that this is a solid basis for belief in the teachings of Joseph Smith.

Then, as an introduction to this from the main article, we are provided with an assertion that these people saw the alleged plates with their own eyes (Later, at least [we want to lead you to believe there were probably more] eleven people besides Smith would state that they had seen the plates (see Three Witnesses and Eight Witnesses).)...can you say POV? Yes, indeed, let's just state the facts. bcatt 02:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I put back the facts, without summaries or editorializing. I think it's NPOV now. Alienus 03:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I will go back and find the reference for Harris' comments so that they will not be disputed in the future. Also should have a reference for the witnesses statements. When we have the types of outlandish summaries as that above; it would seem appropriate to acutally quote the exact statments of the witnesses and Harris' much later comments. I know that some have complained that there is already too much documentation, but when something is controversial it keeps disputes to a minimum and also prevents diatribes (at least for most sane people). I would prefer to keep this shorter given the topic is Joseph Smith and not the Book of Mormon, but I don't see another way around it. It is difficult to argue with exact quotes from the indivdiuals involved. On another note, Emma Smith did write that she lifted the golden plates several times when they were wrapped in cloth.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Storm Rider (talk • contribs) .

Well we could take out the comments about the witnesses entirely since this is starting to veer away from the topic of the article and get into fine details possibly best left to the sub articles. I had originally added that sentence to say that it wasn't just JS that was making these claims. The "at least eleven people" was to take into account Mrs. Whitmer who also had claimed to see the plates and possibly a sister of JS who helped hide them. I do think that it would still be useful to add some kind of mention the fact that these were relatives and close friends since this is a key point to the opposing view. Along with that, this whole discussion was started by an editor trying to present the opposing view and we should try and be true to that intent without having it turn into a partisan commentary. That's why I've been suggesting a sentence about why critics emphasize these points - though it would nice to be able to quote/reference a critic rather than say some people or critics. Yes, I know I keep pushing this sentence, but it's for these reasons of stating the opposing view's opinion and not to provide a commentary. So how about "Some critics, such as <insert name>, question the validity of these additional claims due to the nature of the witnesses' experiences and to their close relations with Smith." This way we avoid the veiled judgement of how these are unreliable and do justice to the opposing view by stating their points of contention succinctly and directly. --FyzixFighter 04:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Exactly...when they were wrapped in a cloth...in other words, she didn't see them. And again, Storm Rider, you have made personal attacks, and are seeking to add more mormon propaganda into an already overly long and heavily POV article. If my summary is so outlandish, show me a source which says: "I saw the plates with my very own eyes, not in a vision and not covered with anything" (even Smith says he wasn't allowed to see them first hand). All I did was take out all the "padding parts", as anyone can see by comparing my summary with the quote you provided just above it. bcatt 04:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

What the article now states is:

"Later, at least eleven people besides Smith would state that they had seen the plates (see Three Witnesses and Eight Witnesses).Martin Harris, one of the three witnesses, eventually clarified that the plates were in fact seen in a religious vision. The eight witnesses were all members of either Smith's family or those of David Whitmer, who was one of the three witnesses."

That may sound like it meets NPOV to you, but you would be wrong; it is an interpretation history. Martin Harris is the only one that stated some 30+ plus years later, after he had long since been excommunicated that he saw the plates in vision only. That does not mean the rest of the witnesses saw them as such; it means one thing: Martin 30 years later said he saw them in vision. To extrapolate anything else is revisionist and strictly POV.

Don't take it personally, whatever you wrote above was incomprehensible. Understand the difference: your words were incomprehensible. If you want to take it personally that is a personal issue.

Mormon propaganda is your POV. It seems that you consider anything that is remotely positive about Joseph Smith to only be POV and propaganda. Again, that would be a personal issue that you must deal with and has nothing to do with this article.

Get your facts straight. Smith handled the plates with his hands. I don't know what you are reading, but it is not history. You may be referring to the first time the plates were revealed to Joseph. At that time he was not allowed to touch them or take them from their burial place. That took place four years later. This is what happens when an editor has limited knowledge about a subject is determined to act like they are an expert...their actions and edits speak for themselves. If you have questions; ask Alienus. He has a good understanding of Mormon history.

"On another note" the intention was an aside. You will note that it was not added to the article. Had I wanted it in the article I would have added so all that diatribe above was useless. If it makes you feel better, go with. If you think it helps you achieve your objectives with this article; you will be sadly mistaken.

We only have what history provides. We do not interpret it or revise it in this article. My position is that we quote exactly what the witnesses said and what Martin Harris said years later. That is completely neutral and balanced. Yes it will increase the length of the article, but to ensure that it is stricktly NPOV it will be necessary. It does not hide anything, and it does not interprete anything for the reader.

Fyzix, it would be appropriate to quote a critic who seeks to interpret history. It may cause someone else to quote an apologist, but at the moment I don't think it would be necessary. The facts speak well enough for themselves. Storm Rider 05:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Storm Rider, read megalomaniacal point of view...not only are you considering your POV to be the right opinion, but you also clearly consider your POV to be neutral. Ah yes, I will now be accused of having an MPOV myself...despite that, if that were the case, I would insist that the article regularly point out that Smith very likely had neurological damage as a result of the severe infection in his leg during his childhood and that was the cause of his visions...but, I am mature enough to recognize this as my own POV, and instead seek only to make sure all popular views are equally represented...which means that what his followers say and what his protractors say get equal representation in the article, and it is presented in a manner that does not show preference to either side, and it is presented in clear and modern language. bcatt 06:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why I feed this troll, but I keep hoping that logic wins out. I should understand that trolls have no desire to improve an article, but only to argue and cause contention. An encyclopedic article addresses facts, its objective is not to allow wild conjecture with some demented objective of representation of all opinions. READ CAREFULLY: ALL I HAVE SAID WAS TO QUOTE PEOPLE BOTH PRO AND CON I.E. THE WITNESSES AND MARTIN HARRIS LATER IN LIFE WHEN HE SEEMINGLY CONTRADICTS HIMSELF. We are talking about a paragraph and you are addressing the entire article. If you want to quote the opinions of anti-Mormons fine, all I said was quote them. Do you ever read what write? Does it apply in any way to what other people write...THE ANSWER IS OBVIOUSLY NO. And yes, I am yelling. My intention is to yell becuase you fail to address the topic at hand, and you harp on continually about the article in general while making constant personal attacks. This is my last interaction with you personally. You are a total waste of time. Storm Rider 06:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem seems to be over these last three sentences of the "Early life, family, and religious experiences" section:

1. Later, at least eleven people besides Smith would state that they had seen the plates (see Three Witnesses and Eight Witnesses).
2. Martin Harris, one of the three witnesses, eventually clarified that the plates were in fact seen in a religious vision.
3. The eight witnesses were all members of either Smith's family or those of David Whitmer, who was one of the three witnesses.

Each sentence, taken in isolation, appears to be factual. But in the given arrangement, they give a different impression than is intended. The solution will be to come up with a different summary. What about if this paragraph replaces them?:

Later, at least eleven people, besides Smith, would state that they had seen the plates. A group known as the Three Witnesses (Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer and Martin Harris) claim to have been shown the plates by Moroni. Martin Harris eventually clarified that the plates were in fact seen in a religious vision. A group known as the Eight Witnesses, claim to have been shown the plates by Smith, himself, "and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship." Critics point out that these eight were closely related to Smith or Whitmer.

With the appropriate wikilinks, does this work? Val42 06:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that what Martin Harris says later does not "contradict" what the statement by all three "witnesses" states, it just says it in plainer language..."it was a vision, not a physical viewing"...that is what both accounts say. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by bcatt (talk • contribs) .

Agreed, the wording of the Testimony of 3 is indicative of a vision, not a physical viewing.

And Storm Rider, that Smith handled the plates can hardly be deemed a fact. Your continued tantrums and "I'm never speaking to you again"s are hardly conducive to productive discussion. --FreedominThought 07:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

As has already been pointed out, Harris' clarification did not constitute any sort of contradiction. At most, the original statement of witness was ambiguous, and Harris disambiguated. Frankly, the idea that people saw angel come down with golden tablets in a religious vision is quite reasonable, and a much more likely explanation than the alternative. Is there any reason at all to think they weren't speaking of a vision?

Also, the three statements are not only true taken individually, they're true jointly. The proposed alternative is wordy and has less factual content, so I would not support it. Alienus 12:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Alienus, some would say Harris' later comments are a contradiction of earlier statments. Some read the Witnesses testimony and think that they are speaking in clear terms: they saw the plates with their own eyes. Others interpret the testimony as you do. It is not our place to say which one is true, our job is to report the the facts. Why should anyone interpret what individuals say when you can quote them? In quoting we allow the readers to make their own interpretation, rather than any of us stating what we think they are saying. Storm Rider 16:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

From what I can tell, Harris didn't seem to think it was a contradiction of his earlier testimony, just a clarification. Now, if you really want, I suppose we could add something to the effect of "clarification (or, according to some, contradiction)", but I don't see how that's any better. If anything, it's less neutral and less cited. Alienus 05:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Alienus, you don't like my proposed revision. Please make a proposal for an alternative. Val42 04:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

My proposed alternative is the text as it currently stands. While I freely admit that it's not perfet, I think it strikes a reasonable balance between raw fact and explanation, while remaining neutral. Alienus 05:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

My main objection to the original wording is that it makes no differentiation between how the Three and the Eight were shown the plates. The second sentence, unless read very carefully and already knowing the information, gives the impression that all of the witnesses saw the plates in a vision. And in the context, my wording of the last sentence is more concise and understandable than the sentence that it replaces. Val42 05:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I think bcatt's latest edit does a pretty good job of explaining the different stated experiences of the witnesses while also including their relations to JS in an NPOV manner. My only suggestions are to maybe add "firsthand" to the 8 witnesses description to contrast it to the 3 witnesses account, and to remove the quotation marks around the second mention of "the three witnesses". It makes it almost look like scare quotes; we could just as well capitalize it, ie Three Witnesses, since that title was already defined in the previous sentence. Nice work, bcatt. --FyzixFighter 04:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Not to play devil's advocate, but do we actually know that the 8 witnessed it first-hand? The testimony of the 3 sounds like it could be first-hand, but for Harris' clarification. Could it be that the 8 also saw it in a vision? I'm not saying we know this to be the case or should state it this way, just that we shouldn't make it sound like this possibility has been ruled out if it hasn't. Alienus 05:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem, I was merely throwing it out there as a possibility. It would probably be more correct to say that they were shown and allowed to handle the plates, as they claim to have done in their statement and something the 3 witnesses did not do. For a further reference, in the History of the Church, Vol 1., note 7 of chapter 6 says:

The difference between the testimony given the Three Witnesses and that given to the Eight, is that the former was attended by a splendid display of the glory and power of God and the ministration of an angel, while the latter was attended by no such display, but was a plain, matter-of-fact exhibition of the plates by the Prophet to his friends, and they not only saw the plates, but handled them and examined the engravings upon them.

--FyzixFighter 05:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Fyzix. I did think of putting "first hand" in the article, but opted for keeping it simply as "shown by Smith" because the statement of the eight is very ambiguous and difficult to tell what they meant by being shown. That they say they held them in their hands...but so does Emma - while they were covered...that makes a big difference. This is in contrast to the account of the three that states outright that it was a vision...a vision that was apparently "given by or through or facilitated by Smith" in that there is no account of anybody seeing the plates - in a vision or otherwise - independent of Smith's presence. It is clear from the statement of the three that "seeing" something does not necessarily mean seeing in the same sense as when I say "I am seeing my computer screen while I type this...I can reach out and touch it while I view it". Alienus...I'm not sure how the three's testimony suggests that it wasn't a vision (it says three times that they were shown by non-earthly figures, and says once specifically that they were not shown by a human being)...but I do certainly agree that while the eight should not be represented as a vision, it should not either be represented as not a vision, since the statement is very unclear on this detail. Perhaps we could elaborate that the eight say they held the plates but it's unclear as to whether the plates were covered or uncovered, and that they say they saw them, but it is unclear as to whether this was in a vision or while they held them...but this seems to defeat the efforts to better summarize the article. I do hate to say this, but church documents explaining the difference between the accounts is not a reliable source for determining how the statement should be represented in the article, especially in a summary format. The focus here should be to stae what we can ascertain from the barest evidence possible. In this case, the exact statements themselves are the barest evidence we have.

With the quoted second mention of the three, I did not intend it as scare quotes, but rather to indicate it as a "special term usage"...a usage of an ambiguous term that is used in an unambiguous way specific to this topic (ie: outside of Mormonism, this term could mean a whole lot of things; and to anyone who is not Mormon, it is not related to any specific thing). If anyone has read a lot of the manual of style and has any suggestions for how to deal with this type of thing, that would be great - I haven't really read it, I just learn most of the format and style stuff as I go along from how the majority of articles are formatted and what the bots are doing, and look up specific stuff when I need it - otherwise, it might be simpler to just think of a different way to word it so that "three witnesses" is only mentioned once. Based on what I do know about the manual of style, I question the use of initial capitalization of the terms ("Three Witnesses/Eight Witnesses", as opposed to "three witnesses/eight witnesses"), as I understand that only eponyms should be capitalized...please do correct me if I have misunderstood this, otherwise, both articles need to be moved to the appropriate page name, and their appearance in other articles also needs to updated. bcatt 07:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Bcatt, just to clarify, the testimony of the three witnesses was not particularly clear as to whether they saw it with their own eyes or in a Smith-induced vision. However, Harris did later clarify that it was the latter. For the eight witnesses, their testimony is no less clear, and I agree that we can't simply tow the LDS line on this one (though I'm not opposed to mentioning their stance in a cited manner). This really is a bit of a mess, hence hard to summarize. Alienus 18:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The criticism that the witnesses only saw the plates "in vision" (i.e., they weren't real) is effectively rebutted in Richard L. Anderson's classic work Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses (Deseret Book, 1981; LINK). Any claim that they didn't really see physical plates needs to deal with Anderson's extensive research, which includes quotes from the witnesses themselves denying that they only had a vision and affirming that the plates were a physical reality. If such quotes would be useful and appropriate for this article, I would be more than happy to provide them. --MrWhipple 18:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, maybe I won't wait to be asked:

Cowdery: "I wrote, with my own pen, the entire Book of Mormon (save a few pages) as it fell from the lips of the Prophet Joseph, as he translated it by the gift and power of God, by the means of the Urim and Thummim, or as it is called by the book, Holy Interpreters. I beheld with my eyes, and handled with my hands, the gold plates from which it was transcribed. I also saw with my eyes and handled with my hands the Holy Interpreters. That book is true." (Andrew Jenson, LDS Biographical Encyclopedia 1:246, italics added.)

Harris: "Gentlemen, do you see [my right] hand? Are you sure you see it? Are your eyes playing a trick or something? No. Well, as sure as you see my hand so sure did I see the angel and the plates." (Anderson, p. 116.)

Whitmer: "In regards to my testimony to the visitation of the angel, who declared to us Three Witnesses that the Book of Mormon is true, I have this to say: Of course we were in the spirit when we had the view, for no man can behold the face of an angel, except in a spiritual view, but we were in the body also, and everything was as natural to us, as it is at any time. Martin Harris, you say, called it 'being in vision.' We read in the Scriptures, Cornelius saw, in a vision, an angel of God. Daniel saw an angel in a vision, also in other places it states they saw an angel in the spirit. A bright light enveloped us where we were, that filled at noon day, and there in a vision, or in the spirit, we saw and heard just as it is stated in my testimony in the Book of Mormon." (Letter of David Whitmer to Anthony Metcalf, Mar. 1887, cit. Anthony Metcalf, Ten Years Before the Mast [Malad, Ida., 1888], p. 74; quoted in Anderson, p. 86.)

A recollection of Whitmer: "How well and distinctly I remember the manner in which Elder Whitmer arose and drew himself up to his full height — a little over six feet — and said, in solemn and impressive tones: 'No sir! I was not under any hallucination, nor was I deceived! I saw with these eyes, and I heard with these ears! I know whereof I speak!'" (Anderson, p. 88.)

--MrWhipple 19:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

It would be nice to see non-church research (ie: a neutral source) that does this investigation. As it is, this article is heavily bogged down with church sources, while all non-church sources are dismissed. This is not the way to write a NPOV article. bcatt 22:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Bcatt: What would be an acceptable "non-church source" for statements by the Book of Mormon witnesses? Since all of the witnesses were members of Church at some point, you can't get away from someone being a Mormon here. Some of the witnesses, however, were interviewed by newspapers and magazines about their stories (I'm thinking specifically of Harris and Whitmer), and repeated the same assertions: The plates were real, Joseph Smith translated them by divine power, and the testimony of the Book of Mormon is true. I think what you're looking for — some independent confirmation by someone who never believed Joseph Smith — simply doesn't exist. (And there's a reason for that.) --MrWhipple 22:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

While the wording of the of the eight is ambiguous as to the exact details of what happened, their statement mentions three things that they did: were shown the plates, handled/hefted the "leaves", and saw the engravings (which imo would imply that they weren't covered, unlike Emma's experience). bcatt, I think if we include all three parts we could do justice to their statement - and we can leave the summary at that, not making any further claims as to the nature of the viewings. The more I think about it, I'd be fine dropping my challenges since the current sentence does present a succint NPOV summary of their statements and additional info does start getting outside the scope of the section. Yeah, I was expecting your comment on the HOC source, and I really should have clarified that I had posted it to show the mormon theological POV of the witnesses, and did not intend on adding it to the article. That quote, of course with the appropriate qualifying statements saying that it is the mormon perspective on the events, would more properly belong on the witnesses or golden plates articles. I am honestly fine with leaving the 3 witness account as a vision, though I don't think that the Vision (religion) does a good job of covering all the possible meanings of "religious vision" - perhaps we could remove the wikilink or work with the editors over there to flesh out that article. Certainly the mormon view of "vision" is broader, and even the non-mormon view we are discussing here of angelic visitations and divine/supernatural elements is somewhat outside the definition provided on that article.

As for the quotation marks, I didn't mean to imply that it was your intent. I'm sorry if it came across that way. While I haven't read extensively the MoS here, I did some digging to find out what the format is. Here are what I believe are the relevant guidelines:

Deities begin with a capital letter: God, Allah, Freya, the Lord, the Supreme Being, the Messiah. The same is true when referring to important religious figures, such as Muhammad, by terms such as the Prophet. Transcendent ideas in the Platonic sense also begin with a capital letter: Good and Truth. Pronouns referring to deities, or nouns (other than names) referring to any material or abstract representation of any deity, human or otherwise, do not begin with a capital letter.

I think an argument could be made that the witnesses qualify as important religious figures. Capital letters on both words is also appropriate for proper nouns, and again a argument could be made that Three Witnesses refers to not just any three witnesses, but three specific witnesses, similar in style to christian articles referring to the "Twelve Apostles" or the "Synoptic Gospels". Certainly these arguments aren't airtight and open to debate. I'm still searching the MoS, and looking for ways similar references are handled in other articles, whether by capitalization or quotation marks or something else.

As for the neutral non-church sources, one way around it is to reference the primary sources themselves - thus not referencing Anderson for MrWhipple's quotes above, but the actual documents written by the relevant people, without a POV commentary. Let's not throw out an authentic reproduction of historical documents just because they're published today by mormon publishers. I see a few challenges with finding "neutral" sources in general. First, no source is perfectly neutral, everyone has a point of view from which they approach a subject. Secondly, not all non-church sources are "neutral" and not all "neutral" sources are non-church. Church sources of course will show some POV, some more strongly than others, and so we should identify the church sources that are the most balanced. Lastly, there's the problem of number. Mormons have done more research and have more records on their history than anyone else, so if I randomly go the mormon section at the university library, the majority of books there will be from mormon sources. This is not an excuse to not look for neutral, non-church sources, but this does mean that we have to search a little harder to ensure the readers and other editors that we are drawing on a balanced pool of references to create the article. The perception of credibility can be just as important as actual credibility. --FyzixFighter 22:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, it's extremely difficult to find neutral sources on Mormonism because, until recently, it's been too small and too peculiar a faith to draw much attention from people who are dispassionately attempting to study it (i.e., most books are either polemically against it apologetically for it). This is starting to change with the creation of Mormon Studies programs at universities in the U.S. and Britain, but we have some ways to go before a true "objective" look is given to Mormonism.

In the meantime, Anderson's research — irrespective of his bias — is solid, and the starting place for any serious discussion of the Witnesses. Any claim that their experience was hallucinatory or purely visionary needs to deal with his work. --MrWhipple 23:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

This is not a convincing argument for adding yet another church source to an already biased source list. bcatt 00:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

You're kidding me, right? The best, most comprehensive research yet done on the Witnesses, and you want to exclude it simply because the author is a believing Mormon? Who's the one with the bias here?

Instead of knocking references out because of who the author is (the very definition of ad hominem), perhaps you should look at including references that are based on good scholarship. Have you read Anderson? --MrWhipple 07:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

No, I want to exclude it because the list of sources is already chock full of mormon sources and almost completely lacking in non-mormon sources. That's not called biased, that's called observant, not to mention deeply interested in NPOV. I'm not knocking it out because of "who the author is"...you should have read my comment carefully instead of jumping to obviously wrong conclusions...I am saying that there is already an imbalance in the source list, and this needs to be balanced out rather than making it even more imbalanced than it already is. According to most of the mormons I have heard from so far "good scholorship" in mormon language means "mormon scholorship"...hence why every non-mormon source which is attempted to be cited in the article is discarded. How's that for ad hominem attack? bcatt 08:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I suppose to help with the atrocious imbalance of listed sources, one of those positive sources could be deleted and insert Andersen's work. Then again we could just delete all of the positive sources because they distort the article. We should never let facts get in the way of NPOV policy. The poor readers would be mislead with actual history; we could not have that. What we need is tit for tat writing. If we quote one positive author then we must quote one negative author. What we end up with is something that is in complete compliance with NPOV and an absolutely meaningless article. Ain't life grand! Storm Rider 16:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, I don't think you're giving Bcatt the respect due to him. All he's asking for is for the sources to include more than just Mormons. That's not unreasonable, but your response is. Alienus 17:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

No, her concept is that a balanced article must have references from both pro and con; i.e. even if the comment is critical if it comes from a Mormon it must not be critical enough. The reference must come from a bonafide anti-Mormon to fit this standard. All Mormon scholars have a skewed perception and are thus untrustworthy. It does not matter what historical fact is as evidenced by research, it is who is doing the research and does it say Mormonism is a farce that is of preeminent importance. She worships at the alter of NPOV, but to the determent of factual history. Instead of quoting the Three Witnesses she preferred, and you supported, interpreting what they said. How is that factual? Whatever happended to just stating what was said? Note: I did not say that it would not be appropriate to provide commentary after quoting, but not to quote and then provide an interpretation is unacceptable.

Further, I am not aware of one anti-Mormon author who was not allowed to be quoted. Yet she keeps accusing everyone here that we are censoring. If she has a reference, put it in, but do not think that if the quote is disputed that another reference will not also be used. That is the true definition of balance. When something is in dispute, provide opposing sides as presented by referenced sources.

Can you really support not quoting the sources that Whipple listed above simply because there are already too many other references? Can you say censorship? This is turning into a farce and you know it, Alienus. Storm Rider 18:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

You know, the world is a lot bigger than pro-Mormonism and anti-Mormonism. Most people have never even heard of Mormonism in the first place, and those who have heard of it likely know little more than the Osmonds and the Tabernacle Choir. Frankly, when it comes to Mormonism, ignorance and apathy are the norm. Keep that in mind before you try to divide the world up into allies and enemies. Agreeing with bcatt on this matter does not make me your enemy. It makes me someone who disagrees on one particular matter. Take off your blinkers and tone down your hostility.

Now, some scholars of Mormonism are not pro or con; they just stick to the facts, regardless of where that leads them. However, when a scholar is clearly partisan, we have to recognize this and not pretend it's immaterial. . The fact that someone is biased colors the likelihood that their claims are factual and adding partisan scholars can upset POV neutrality, so we have to be careful. Alienus 18:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Deleting one SPOV (supportive POV) source and inserting another SPOV source does not make the source list balanced, it just makes it just as imbalanced instead of more imbalanced, which is not really any better. The fact that the source list is practically wholly comprised of SPOV sources does distort the article because it only provides one POV, which is in opposition to NPOV. The way to achieve NPOV is to balance the amount of SPOV and OPOV (opposing POV) sources. You are not only getting way out of hand with your MPOV, disrupting the discussion, but you also made my point perfectly about how all OPOV sources are dismissed as unsuitable:

• You allude that only SPOV sources provide "the facts" and "actual/factual history"

  You state that NPOV results in a meaningless article...in that case, you are wasting your time here on wikipedia, because, as I have pointed out before, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable"

  You criticize me for wanting to adhere to wiki policy on NPOV, as though a balanced source list representing all views is a bad thing

  Although you claim that sourced critical views are welcome, when I attepted to add a view provided in a newspaper, it was promptly deleted...twice

I don't think I've seen any mormon sources that are actually critical of Smith, they all represent him as an innocent martyr. Where there is an unavoidable negative fact about JS or his followers, it is represented as occuring simply because that's how things were in those days; however, when there is a negative fact about those outside the LDS movement that is equally "just how things were done in those days", it is represented as a horrible offense, and all discussion as to what motivated the act is omitted. When I engaged in discussing the testimony of the three, I did not interpret, I used their exact words with all the fluff removed (everything that did not speak of who showed them the plates and how)...funny though, that you should accuse me of that when the book of mormon is JS's interpretation of the bible. Also, having a balanced source list is not censorship, whereas refusing to allow OPOV sources to be used is censorship. Nobody has tried to remove any of the current sources, and frankly, I find this game of wrongly accusing me of the behaviours you are actually engaging in quite tiresome and disturbing, not to mention how disruptive they are. Also, your tendancy to avoid saying what you mean to avoid responsibility for your comments increases the disruption (ie: your masked accusation that Freedom is my sock puppet). I think someone mentioned a Mormon wiki where the goal is to be SPOV, you might like it better there.

Alienus, I do certainly agree that the world is a lot bigger than just pro- and anti-mormon, but as you say, those that are not of one of those two camps tend to either not know anything at all about mormonism (or that it even exists), or really don't care (and therefore don't try to learn anything about it). This is true of nearly any subject, if someone takes an interest in a subject enough to learn more about it, they develop a POV about it, whether they allow this POV to taint their research and work resulting from that research depends on the individual, not on their POV. It is far more likely (though not true in every case) that an opposing view is going to be more objective than a supportive view, because the opposing view, in most cases, has a lot less to lose in being 100% candid about an issue. bcatt 20:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Alienus,then we are saying the same thing; I don't care where the scholarship comes from and I reject qualifying scholarship based upon the relgious affiliation of the researcher. It is inappropriate to judge the quality of NPOV of an article simply by reviewing the religious affiliation of the referenced work.

Scholarly research becomes tainted when historians attempt to interpret history rather than focusing on the facts. As good as some of Brodie's research may be, she fails the test of neutrality because she states her objective is to prove Joseph Smith was a fraud and ignores historical fact when it conflicts with her thesis. This does not mean Brodie should not be quoted, but it does cause one to want to check the facts before leaving her quote to stand on its own.

The topic of this article is Joseph Smith, Jr. The only individual who has attempted to limit scholarly research and factual history is Bcatt. Agreed, I am hostile because I am tired of people who make a multitude of accusations when the facts demonstrate that the accusations are mostly accurate about the accuser.

You and I may have disagreed in the past, but we have never been hostile to one another nor are we hostile now. You typically have always approached a subject from a logical perspective and are respected by other editors for that. You accept the premise that articles be fair, that all facts are presented, both pro and con. I have never known you to throw out facts simply because the facts distort your idea of NPOV. Storm Rider 20:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The Book of Mormon is not Smith's interpretation of the Bible. You might want to read up on that. Also, I disagree with your assessment that OPOV sources are more likely to be objective -- they have at least as much to lose as the SPOV does, and as Mormonism is correct, those with OPOVs have a flaw somewhere in their research or reasoning and if they admit to it their reputation will be down the tubes, so they perhaps have more to lose. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 20:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Since there is no physical (ie: nothing other than his claims and the claims of those closely associated with him) proof that the events actually occurred, it is, in a purely objective view, his interpretation. You assert that "Mormonism is correct", and that is the basis for all of your arguments. In fact, the truth is that Joseph Smith said that mormonism is correct...that does not make it fact. I can say all kinds of things and it doesn't make it correct, it just means that I said it...same goes for every other human being on the planet. Further, saying that "Mormonism is correct". Period. is a clear display of MPOV on your part as well. bcatt 21:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

It is not an example of MPOV on my part. The MPOV page warns "[megalomancial point of view] should not be confused with My Point of View". You've done this. I don't edit the article based on the conviction that Mormonism is correct and I recognize that this is not a fact one acknowledges through simple physical evidence. I was rebutting your statements completely without the context of the article or the anything else. I'm off-topic. And in a purely objective view, the Book of Mormon is a work completely independent of the Bible and is not an interpretation of the latter. This is obvious and clear. It's an unchangeable fact; whether you believe that it is a translation of an actual ancient record is irrelevant. The Book of Mormon is not an interpretation of the Bible in any non-psychedelic thought zone. Also, Mormonism is correct not because Joseph Smith said it is, but because it actually is. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 22:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

If you were to say that the BoM is not the Bible, you'd be right. But that's not enough for you. Instead, you claim it's "completely independent", which is utter nonsense. Don't overstate your case to the point of error. Alienus 23:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to stop everyone and back up the conversation here. This dispute is whether or not there are sources outside of the Latter Day Saint movement (and Mormonism and the LDS Church) about the three witnesses. I am unaware of any academic research, aside from the John Whitmer Historical Association, University of Illinois and Santa Clara. Those are the only real academic areas that have studied Mormonism. Everyone else that has published credible research on the matter is either LDS, CoC, Strangite (or related LDSM denomination). Unless someone else can point to other reputable source, lets stick with academics on this issue, who publish in peer-reviewed journals, and their extra-curricular work in published books. I can agree that things published by the LDS church are designed to be faith-promoting, and thus would not allow for a detraction viewpoint. This makes sense. However, just because someone is LDS or not, does not make them an apologist. Todd Compton is a perfect example. How much more controversial can you get than his book on polygamy? However, he is LDS. I think that Bushman's work is good. Teh book reference above is a result of peer-reviewed papers. It is relaible. Let's quote the original sources as often as we can, letting the reader come to their own conclusion. I'm fine quoting other known historians on the matter, as long as they document. Bcatt, if you have other known and reputable sources, please share them.

Finally, the point of this article is not to prove mormonism, not to prove the existence of the plates, but to report history. Let's get back to the point of the article, folks. More sources, yes. Too many? That's nonsense. That's the point of Wikipedia - no limit on length. -Visorstuff 23:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Just by editing this section of the discussion, I get a length warning: "This page is 53 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size." Perhaps we should take this as a hint that this particular discussion is generating more heat than light. Remember, we're trying to decide on wording for a short summary for a section that is discussed in more detail on another page. Val42 01:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed the length warning too...it is more of an issue for articles, readability and such, but I was thinking that since these discussions are still current, but the page is getting too big, we could take each of the headings and make them a list of links labeled as current discussions under the original heading that this whole set of debates started under. Thoughts? bcatt 06:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

We can probably archive any dead parts of this page. I was also looking at the article itself and noticed that it had a large section that hasn't been broken out yet, "Major teachings". Perhaps we can extract this into "Major teachings of Joseph Smith" or something, leaving a link and summary in the main article. What do you think? Alienus 06:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Really? I had considered that the one well-summarized section of the article. It looks kind of long because it is broken down into sub-sections, and perhaps each section could be shortened a bit (and they could use some style and language cleanup), but I found it to be pretty well-summarized already...do you mean to integrate the most relevant bits under each sub-heading into a few paragraphs under a single heading...or? bcatt 08:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying the section is bad, just disproportionately large. For articles that are increasingly comprehensive over time, the idea is to break out self-sufficient sections into forked articles, then condense the original to a summary paragraph that links to the new main article for that subject. This is what I'm suggesting for "Major teachings". Alienus 08:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Like a descriptive paragraph followed by a list of relevant articles? bcatt 08:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Like the "1827 to 1831" section, which is a summary that references the main article, Life of Joseph Smith, Jr. from 1827 to 1831. Alienus 17:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Gotcha..."Teachings of Joseph Smith, Jr." sounds good to me as a sub article, it's a general enough name that it allows for further subbing if need be. bcatt 00:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Life in Missouri subsection

I'm not really too sure what to do with this subsection. It seems poorly organized and difficult to read. I don't want to remove anything of worth, so I want to put anything I take out into the subarticle, but I'm not sure how exactly to do this without interrupting the flow of both articles. I removed the paragraph on the Danites in the main article (relatively unimportant, already in subarticle), and moved the quote about the trial to the subarticle, and added much clarification to the subsection. This sectino still needs work, however, so please tighten up the prose and make it more readable.

For your viewing pleasure, I give you my diff from this article, and my diff from the subarticle. I would like help on both, if possible. --Trevdna 22:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Jesus Christ to Jesus

I would restore this to Jesus Christ as I don't know what purpose of the change is, but because it was made by bcatt I am asking for comments. At the least one reference to Jesus Christ should be made because there is a distinction between Jesus and Jesus Christ in that the latter is a reference to Jesus as the Messiah. Trödel&#149;talk 12:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I see merit in not have labels excessively repeated; however, Jesus Christ is a far more appropriate label than Jesus in many instances. The name of the church is an example where Jesus just does not work. As stated above, Christ has a distinct meaning and is most appropriate at times. I would support adding Christ to those where it is most appropriate and then either changing Jesus to another synonym where possible in other areas or just using Jesus. Storm Rider 18:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Jesus all by itself is self-explanatory. I obviously left all the church-name Jesus instances as "Jesus Christ" because that is the name of the church. The reason for taking out Christ is realized easily when one reads the articles regarding Jesus and Christ separately; when this is done, one can see that where "Jesus" makes a clear reference to a familiar figure, "Jesus Christ" asserts that Jesus is, in fact, a "Christ" (or more accurately the Christ), when many people do not actually hold this view. It is fine to say something like "Jesus, who is regarded by X to be the Christ" and so on, but it is inappropriate, in an article that is supposed to be NPOV, to assert him as definitively being the Christ. Similarly, referring to him definitively as "Messiah" and similar titles is an assertion that does not fit within NPOV. The only real distinction between Jesus and Jesus Christ is that the first is a reference that practically everyone knows who is being referred to, and the second is a POV version of the first. Anyone who already knows who Jesus is will know that Christians and other religions regard him as the Christ, those who don't already know who Jesus is can go to the Jesus article and will read in the very first sentence that he is sometimes referred to as "Jesus Christ" and the whole story behind it. This is very similar to the reference to God as "God the Father" or just "the Father" and similar POV titles (which one user keeps adding back in to the first vision), it is fine to describe that "God is known as 'the Father' in X context", but if a reference is made to God as "the Father" (which I could see happening due to the fact that one could be making reference to God in this perceived capacity specifically), then it needs to be put in quotes, so as to indicate to the reader (who, in writing articles, we are supposed to assume has no opinion yet and should be left to form one on their own, based on the facts, not on the assertions of any one POV) that this phrase is being used in a specific context or by a specific group of people. bcatt 19:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

There are several locations where you have replaced Jesus Christ with Jesus - where the assertion that Jesus is the Christ is notable, starting with description of the first vision which (as StormRider explains below), the assertion that there were two seperate beings, adn that one was the Messiah are improtant. I'll leave the rest for others to explain. Trödel&#149;talk 02:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I guess I am ever hopefully of a logical conversation with you Bcatt. Let's try one more time.

The reason God the Father and Jesus Christ is appropriate when referring to the Smith's first vision/theophany is because it the majority of the Christian world believes that God is the Father and the Son...one sole individual. The Mormon teaching of two separate, distinct individuals is a minority belief in the Christian world. When a Christian reads they way you have edited there is not distinction; it is not an accurate statement.

You changed "was necessary for a complete restroation of Jesus's ancient church. This would seem acceptable because there is not a significant need to identify the Messiah.

You deleted Christ from the statement, "He also taught...that mankind should pray and worship in the name of Jesus Christ." Without Christ the statement is wrong. Mormons do nothing int he name of Jesus; it is always done int he name of Jesus Christ.

Your third deletion of Christ was from the statment that "Joseph taught that Jesus Christ, God's only begotten son in the flesh, is our example to follow. Here Christ would seem not to be needed.

You deleted Christ from the following statement, "It said that these people had a knowledge of Jesus Christ, that they had prophets that recorded their own scriptures that testified of Jesus Christ,...". It is more appropriate to say Jesus Christ because they professed to know Jesus as the Messiah, not the man. The scriptures say that even Demons know Jesus, but do not believe in Him as the Messiah. Also, the second one testifies that Jesus is the Christ; not just Jesus.

Context is vital to understand when it is appropriate to use Christ and when it is not. As I said above, repetitive titles can make reading an article less interesting, but using too broad a brushstroke presents incorrect information and misrepresents some aspects of Joseph Smith. Storm Rider 22:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

• The purpose of the change is to NPOV the article
• There is no real distinction between Jesus and Jesus Christ...they both refer to the exact same person. The sole difference lies in the fact that adding Christ to Jesus' name changes it from a NPOV identification of who is being referred to, into a POV assertion that the person being referred to "is this".

• Extreme OPOV = "imaginary person named Jesus that religious zealots consider to be "the Christ", and insist on referring to him as "Jesus Christ" as though "Christ" were his last name or official title when in reality it is just their opinion of him"
• NPOV = "Jesus"; "Jesus, who X believe is the Christ"; etc
• Extreme SPOV = "Jesus Christ"; "Messiah"; any combination of these or other similar terms that state POVs as facts, rather than state facts about POVs

• "Jesus" is not a label, it is his actual name..."Christ" however is a label - a POV label, to be exact
• Arguing a change that was never made, never suggested, and never even hinted at is not conducive to productive discussion
• The primary problem here is arising from SPOV being touted as neutral (which is actually MPOV); for example, to paraphrase Trodel: "it is important to assert that Jesus is the Christ, God and Jesus are two separate beings, and Jesus is the Messiah"...no! it's actually important to make it very clear that these views are held by a specific group of people...in terms of the rest of the world, these views are held by a minority and have no physical basis in reality
• Logic...it seems that in order for me to be deemed "logical", I have to say things like: "multiple marriage equally can mean non marital multiple marriage relationships", "catholic can refer to something other than Catholic", or "I'll only do something for a person after I've attached a label to them, even though it really makes no difference because they are still the same person with or without the label"
• God and Jesus can be differentiated as two separate beings without POV labels
• Since "Jesus" and "Jesus Christ" mean the same exact person (but one has a POV label and the other doesn't), it really makes little sense to say "we do this in the name of Jesus Christ, not Jesus"...it would be equivalent to me saying, in relation to my parenting "I take care of Amaryllis Kalilah Adoré, the fresh, beloved and adored, but I don't take care of Amaryllis" - which is just nonsense because she is the same person no matter what she is called (plus, people would get annoyed if I insisted she be called by both her name and "title" or if I constantly referred to her that way, particularly since, though she is "fresh, beloved, and adored" in my POV, she isn't necessarily those things in other people's POVs
• About "God's only begotten son in the flesh": this phrase is way to preachy for a NPOV article, it should be reworded. Also, it doesn't seem to honestly represent JS teachings, since, according to him, we are all God's spiritual offspring incarnated into physical bodies, and Jesus was simply the firstborn of this pre-earth brood. Only real difference being that, according to Smith, Jesus was the only one who didn't lose his memory of "heaven" upon incarnation to an earthly body
• It's all fine and dandy that they professed Jesus to be the Christ, that needs to be represented clearly (ie: "this is an opinion held by X") instead of asserting that he is the Christ.
• Yes, context is vital...that is exactly why the use of "Christ" needs to be put in the proper context when it is used instead of being used as a POV pushing tool by presenting it as a fact rather than the opinion that it is.

bcatt 21:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately I think you continue to fail to see how NPOV works. e.g. "Joseph Smith claimed to have an theophany in which ... God the Father and Jesus Christ..." This sentence is from the Neutral point of view - it identifies the source, that the source of the information "Joseph Smith" is disputed "claimed" and then describes the event as Joseph Smith would describe it. It is extremely POV to change this to God and Jesus because 1) the description does not accurately describe the view of the source of the statement, and 2) the change asserts that Jesus is not the Christ. This POV should discussed on the Jesus page and not asserted here. To attribute that language to Joseph Smith is simply not accurate. Trödel&#149;talk 03:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Erm...no. But I guess it's difficult to understand what actual NPOV is when you have a megalomaniacal POV. If you want to use Smith's language then put it in quotes. The change doesn't actually assert that Jesus is not the Christ, it leaves it open for the reader to interpret (the definition and purpose of NPOV). If you actually believe your comments above to be true: don't be dense; if you are simply making any argument you can cook up, then you are being disruptive to wikipedia and violating a number of policies and I'm not the type to ignore that kind of thing. bcatt 16:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Guys, I don't see why there should be so much heat over this minor issue. Leaving out specific Christian claims about whether Jesus was indeed the messiah does not entail either supporting or opposing them. Rather, it's simply a matter of being silent on an irrelevant side issue that is unnecessary controversial.

In other words, it's NPOV to omit this. We should mention it if it's a direct quote, of course, or if it's particularly relevant to the point where omission would be misleading. Otherwise, there's no need to get involved in this mess. Even within the religions that acknowledge Jesus in any capacity, there is a wide array of views about his status. We should recognize this and act accordingly. Alienus 16:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Uh-oh! Somebody better check whether Alienus is my sock puppet! (Though, I suppose it would be the other way around, since he's been around longer). Sorry...I couldn't restrain myself. I will behave now. bcatt 17:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, that would explain why I can't sit comfortably in this chair. On second thought, if I was your sockpuppet, I'd share your apparent anger towards Trödel. In fact, we've talked before, and he's reasonable even though he's wrong a lot we often disagree. Alienus 17:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Not anger so much as a combination of mirth and self-debate about whether he actually says these things in seriousness, or if it is veiled trolling. Reasonable in the tone of his comments, I would agree, but falling short of reason in their content - which is the source of my undecidedness on this point. I am trying to assume good faith (that he is actually speaking from what he truly believes, and not with the intent to cause problems) for the time being, but it is difficult when combined with certain questionable editing behaviours. Perhaps what is coming across as anger is my reduced respect for, and impatience with, those who can't (or don't want to) recognize where physical reality ends and individual beliefs begin. In any case, thanks for commenting on the name/label matter...anyone else have anything to add on the Jesus/Jesus Christ thing before any changes are made? bcatt 21:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, you might want to start by reviewing the changes that were made to your initial edits where you deleted all of the "Christ" references, then propose why the changes made to yours do not meet NPOV. Your explanations above was incomprehensible and I don't think you addressed the changes that were made. You keep referring to everyone else that disagrees with you as having a megalomaniacal POV; the problem is that you are the only one is absolutly determined to make everything meet your specific standard of POV. In fact, you accuse everyone that disagrees with you of all types of things. Interestingly, you never once think that the problem might be in your own mind! I, nor I suspect does anyone else, want to hear the plethora of accusations and whining about how everyone picks on you and just doesn't see why you are always right; please, just pull each instance and address why you think it is not correct.

It would then also be helpful for you to visit every Chritian article on the WIKI and delte Christ becuase it offends your sensibilities and concept of NPOV. Storm Rider 01:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I understood him just fine. It's one thing to disagree, another to pretend that someone is babbling.

Bcatt has a very simple point: the guy's name is Jesus. Calling him "Christ" (except in the context of a quote or somesuch) is an endorsement of him as the Messiah, which is a POV incompatible with such things as Judaism, Islam and Bahai'i. It's not his last name, it's a religious title and that's not neutral. What part of this do you fail to understand? 01:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC) Alienus 01:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

First of all, Bcatt is a woman. Please stop referring to her as a him. I am glad that you understood her just fine. You win a gold star; what I said is that I did not understand her and to please address each change she desires to see changed in the article. I believe the way the article as now constituted is accurate and fully meets the stands of NPOV. The only times it uses Christ is when it is appropriate. She made several changes that were either maintained or slightly changed so as not to include Christ. Storm Rider 01:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Then why are you arguing? No, wait, don't answer that. It was a rhetorical question. Let this drop. Alienus 01:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Gathering of Israel subsection

Needs to be researched and re-written. The lost tribes were not to reestablish Israel. Israel was reestablished by Jews from the tribe of Judah which was not one of the lost tribes.--FreedominThought 08:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... most of those major teachings (including this one) were added in by one person after a request for expansion. Do you think this one even needs to be there? It's not really that major... if there was a seperate article about this, it might be relevant, but as it is, it's pretty short and pointless. I would just say do away with it, and add it back in if there's ever a split off article. --Trevdna 23:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Righto then. I removed it - don't think it will be missed, but if it is, feel free to put it back. --Trevdna 15:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Quotes that Mormons were considered abolitionsists

Quick References - I know taht there are news articles also stating this but can't find them quickly:

...they came into the world slaves, mentally and physically. Change their situation with the whites, and they would be like them. They have souls, and are subjects of salvation. -History of the Church, Vol. 5, page 217

The saints were accused of being abolitionists and a threat to the status of the state of Missouri, then a slave state. Even from the 1900s to the 1940s, when there was a general segregation of Blacks from so-called white churches, there was no Church policy of racial segregation of blacks and whites in THE CHURCH of JESUS CHRIST of Latter Day Saints. -D. Charles Pyle, Encyclopedia of Mormonism

Trödel&#149;talk 01:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

There are several historians that have made statements to this effect. Do you have Bushman's book? He has excellent sources at the end and he provides good information himself. He also confirms that Mormons were perceived as a threat to Missourians.

You will also note that a lot of FUN edits have been made since Friday; looks like people are spending some time on our friendly internet sites. I am glad to see some references in their edits, but the rest all needs to be referenced. They have provided an excellent opportunity to improve the article.

You are going down the right path striving to find references. The only way to counter base anti-Mormon "stuff" is with historical reserach. This article will expand to include most, if not all, the sub articles in order to answer some of the new edits. Responses and other edits may be best forwarded to their sub-articles.

I am focused on other articles right now and don't have a lot of time for research. I will make edits that are readily available to me. The "three" people killed by the six-shooter Cyrus Wheelock gave to Joseph Smith in the Carthage jail has no basis in reality; one of those myths of early anti-Mormon writings. This has been disproven by many historians, but I can't place them at the moment. As I recall, the TWO people who were supposed to be killed by Joseph were either two of the witnesses at the trial or two of the accused.

The edit on apostates and other Missourians being terrified of being burned out by the Mormons. I have never read anything even close to this kind of statment. Given that Mormons in Missouri lost homes by the dozens, women and children were murdered by Missourians, I suspect additional mythology. No references were given and they are needed.

I will continue to drop in and read, but as I said I am focusing on other articles and drafting for one in particular that is taking a lot of research. Cheers. Storm Rider 07:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Inclusions by 67.9.135.139 and 65.70.157.104

These anons have included virtually identical bullet points to the 'Life in Missouri' section, which I object to, not only because I think they are of dubious POV (I worked a little on that), but because they don't seem to be the underlying factors for the violence. I have included the most recent versions below:

• The military expedition led by Joseph Smith to re-take Jackson County by force of arms, otherwise known as Zion's Camp. Smith and his followers were warned by the Clay County Sheriff that they would be committing treason if the crossed over into Jackson County so armed. However, cholera overtook many of Smith's men, so Smith was forced to return back to Kirtland, Ohio.
• The burning out of ex-Mormons from their homes in Davies County, Missouri by Mormon vigilantes called Danites. Although he had publically condemned them, there is speculation that they were acting on the orders of Joseph Smith.
• A June 17, 1838 sermon given by Sidney Rigdon at Far West. Many of the statements in this sermon were viewed by some as a declaration of war against the residents of Missouri.

These DO deserve mention (some perhaps in the subarticle, if not here), but they seem to be effects, rather than underlying causes of violence.

Further, these anons have included the bolded text here: "In consequence of these reports, including sworn affadavits by ex-Mormons that the Mormons were planning to burn both Liberty and Richmond, Missouri, Missouri Governor Lilburn Boggs issued an executive order known as the "Extermination Order" on 27 October 1838..."

If the person that included this is reading this, would they please do a favor and include a reference for this? - it seems to be out of place, as (even if it's true - I suspect it isn't, but it could be...) I'm sure that these reports would have included many other things in them as well. Thanks!--Trevdna 15:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Intro edits

1. Put back the NPOV dispute tag, as there is indeed an ongoing NPOV dispute...added some notes below regarding this
2. Since all my inquiries into the very inaesthetically redundant use of the same picture (and one right under the other, no less!) were completely ignored (ie: no justification for keeping it that way, nevermind the simple acknowledgement that one should be able to expect in a civil society) I've changed it.
3. Wikified some explanatory terms
4. The following sentence fragment is unclear and needed clarification: "...was actively opposed throughout his ministry." This could mean:

   • was opposed widely from within his own congregation
   • was opposed during the whole time he was ministering

   I'm assuming the latter was the intended meaning and will go with that

5. "not welcomed by the existing Christian community" is misleading for a few reasons:

   • It is rather soft wording. "Not welcomed" sounds equivalent to pretending to not be home when religious folks come a knockin' on your door, or letting them talk, but only from the doorstep; whereas the actual Christian reaction was more akin to answering the door and telling them to beat it, not interested, no I don't want your pamphlets cuz they'll just go in the recycle bin (poor trees!)...so, I'll use the opposed part instead.
   • "...existing Christian community" is a little vague; and although "orthodox Christianity" seems at first to be more to the point, with some reasearch one finds that "orthodox" refers to what is "right or correct" (which is a value judgement) as well as being part of the name of certain religious groups (so it may be confusing or misleading); for these reasons, I have opted to use "mainstream Christianity" to indicate "the set of beliefs most commonly accepted as Christianity"...there may be a better word to use, so if anyone can think of one, please use it
   • The reason why Smith's teachings were not accepted by mainstream Christianity is avoided despite it's importance to the subject, so I have added the reason as well as a link to the article which describes this in more detail

6. "This rejection was later compounded..." paints Smith as undeserving of criticism, which is POV (only in Mormonism is he considered undeserving of criticism); "detractors" is also POV in the same way, as it is a pejorative term which implies that those who criticized Smith had no reason to do so, which is certainly not the case

Note: if someone can provide a representative person or body to whom criticism of Smith's military and political involvement can be attributed, that would be dandy and more in keeping with proper NPOV (ie: I would like "by others" to read "by X (group)", "by others, such as Y (group or individual)", "by X (group), such as Y (group or individual)", or anything similar. bcatt 05:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding point #2 - I was looking into finding another painting by Alven Gittins, but have been completely unable to discover any copyright status. I seem to recall that it remains under copyright under the Intellectual Reserve, and so I hesitate to put it up, although it would be easy to find online.

Regarding the rest of these things, I have nothing to say.--Trevdna 04:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I thought I saw a reference somewhere in the talk archives about a site with lots of free use images...at least I hope this was for this article or this may lead to a fruitless search. bcatt 07:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOV dispute (Ongoing NPOV concerns)

Some examples of POV in this article include (not a complete list):

• The overall tone of the article is clearly intended to raise, in the reader, sympathy for Smith (which is a sneaky form of proselytizing), instead of presenting the information in a way that allows the reader to form their own opinions.
• "Persecution" implies that Smith met with opposition based on his beliefs, when in fact, the strongest opposition was in response to his actions, so again, these kind of words attempt to elicit sympathy for Smith by representing him and his followers as innocents and everyone who disagreed with Smith as evil wrongdoers. Conversely, where Smith is truly persecuting non-Mormons (one example being: trying to take over their land simply because of their beliefs (ie: not Mormon, and especially ex-Mormon)), it is not described as such, and is instead presented as being a justifiable action
• Bushmans description of the tarring and feathering uses strong language clearly meant to elicit extrordinary amounts of sympathy; and if it is retained in this article, should at least be preceeded by a neutral introduction.
• Similar strong language is used elsewhere throughout the article to describe actions against Smith, while all of Smith's negative actions are either suppressed, or made to seem as inconsequential as possible by using "soft" language
• Referring to Smith as simply "Joseph" is questionable, as it is discouraged in the style guidelines, and also attempts to put him on a more personal basis with the reader
• ex-Mormons are referred to repeatedly as "disaffected", which pushes the POV that Smith is "the" authority
• In many parts, particularly in the teachings section, the article takes on the tone of a sermon, which is most certainly inappropriate. Specifically religious language and words should not be used except where they are clearly defined as to their meaning and usage, and are identified as to their religious usage. this is especially the case for any terms that are specifically Mormon (ie: not used by mainstream religions and/or used differently from mainstream religions and/or used differently than used by the world at large). Capitalization of He and Him in reference to God or Jesus is also questionable, as this is a "title" of sorts, which according to style guidelines, should not be used without express explaination (same issue as using "Jesus Christ" and "God the Father", which I notice is being done again)
• SPOV is being given undue weight throughout the entire article, with all the Mormon views being described in detail, getting whole paragraphs or more, while almost all instances of OPOV are thrown in with a short, vague sentence (sometimes two...wow!), to give the false impression that the article is presenting all POVs. Truth is, they need to be presented fairly, getting as much attention and space as their "popularity" (for lack of a better word at the moment) calls for. Since non- and ex-Mormons make up 99.8% of the world population (6.5 billion+ world population (6,500,000,000), 13 million mormons (13,000,000), still nearly 6.5 billion non-mormons (6,487,000,000)...mormons make up approx 0.2% of world population), I think those views need quite a bit more attention and detail...and confining those details to sub articles (like what is currently being done) is a form of POV forking and information suppression, which is against NPOV policy.
• The above includes the overabundance of quotes from Mormons and Mormon texts, which are not balanced by quotes from non- and ex-Mormon people and texts (likewise, but on a more general note, there should also be a balance between religious and non-religious quotes). Same goes for both references and external links.

In addition, not all of the issues raised in the previous debate were properly resolved, instead a diversion was created to prevent the discussion from resolving anything...let's keep on topic this time. That means no personal attacks, no edit warring to prevent the article from being properly tagged (because there is indeed an NPOV dispute, as this comment (and many previous comments by several other users) shows), no biting newcomers, no arguments based on POV (ie: this is what my religion says and my religion is the truth, so therefore this is the truth...that's faulty logic), no telling people they aren't knowledgable if they're not Mormon (or deeming another person knowledgable just because they are Mormon)...etc, etc, etc. My patience with these things is as thin as it's going to get, so I won't be as tolerant as I was with the first dispute.

Note: I am not necessarily expecting anyone else to do anything specific to the article, just making it clear that I intend to go through it like I did with the intro, and why; and inviting collaboration on this because that is how we make wikipedia work as it should...I am fairly comfortable with doing the edits myself, if need be, and will ask any questions I need to here or else do the necessary research, but collaboration would be the best way. bcatt 05:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

You have shown an immense degree of understanding of Mormonism. More importantly, you have shown yourself to be the very epitome of NPOV. Please edit to your hearts content. I expect you to reference everything you just as you expect Mormons to reference their comments. We are in absolute awe of your overpowering intelligence and we wait on bended knee to observe your wisdom in action. Storm Rider 07:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry (not really) that you're jealous, and upset that I don't fit into your narrow view of women, but I'm not here to accomodate outdated and inhumane ideas...get over it. This is your last warning about the personal attacks. bcatt 08:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I am stunned!!! Personal attack? You could never be more wrong. I haven't the foggiest idea how you could ever that I would be "upset that I don't fit into your narrow view of women, but I'm not here to accomodate outdated and inhumane ideas...get over it." You do have an active imagination; you must be teasing aren't you. I only stated my heart-felt feelings of awe. Your actions in the past have spoken so loudly that your words are meaningless and unneeded. Please edit to your heart's content.

However, it is true you have set high standards for every other editor that feels slightly different from you (You and I both know that they are really just narrow minded simpletons; you are always so perfect...why can't those cro-magnons ever understand this simple fact! You just can not trust those Mormons to recognize truth). However, I assume you will have to match that same standard you expect of them, but that will be an easy affair for one such as you. I will be your knight and throttle anyone if they should ever think of attacking you. Further I am crushed that you could actually perceive any gesture of mine to be an attack; competely crushed I tell you! One might almost believe that you are neurotic unassuming of the good faith of others. But, I know that would be an impossibility for one of your caliber. Go forth in righteous anger; victory will be yours. Storm Rider 09:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

This time around, I find myself agreeing with bcatt; she has valid arguements because she has actually stated legitimate conerns that she has that are present throughout the article. I think Storm Rider is being sarcastic, and so I disagree with him. (Well, I would agree with him, if I'm wrong, and he is really sincere, but I doubt that.) As long as your (bcatt's) edits provide proper context (including pertinent wikilinks), and provide opposing POVs to current pieces of the article (rather than introducing new instances in Smith's life, just to add an Anti-Mormon POV - these are usually less relevant instances), I would support your work.

The reason I put the Kinderhook Plates section to the subarticle is mostly that it seemed to me a fairly irrevelant piece of information, and the MPOV could be more effectively corrected by simply adding opposing viewpoints to the things that are there now. (Also, that section did not include wikilinks, and I didn't want to deal with that in the main article - a lousy reason, but there it is.) This may have been an accidental POV fork, but I do not think it is a very relevant portion of Smith's life. I feel the best way to counter this MPOV is to add contrasting POVs to existing sections, or take out MPOV from the article as it stands. g However, I don't think the teachings section is as bad as it is made out to be. It speaks about what he taught; that is part of why he was important, and it has been implied that, yes, this is Smith's POV, but yes, this is necessary... But overall, the article does need work.

Bcatt, you had better be willing to take some extra special initiative on this one. We Mormons (myself included - I realize this!) here are not particularly interested in doing research that would go against our own God-given POV. Raul's 3rd law and its corollay explains this phenomenon fairly well.

Also his Razor (11th law) seems to back bcatt up on her allegations of POV in this article.

Bcatt - don't get discouraged by Storm Rider or anyone else! This article needs you! I have no sarcasm here, and truly wish you the best! I will be willing to help if I can. --Trevdna 04:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Trevdna, I'm not one to be easily discouraged (my stubborn streak), but it's nice to have encouragement and collaboration from "the other side" all the same...Fyzix is also very skilled in this regard, but I don't know where he's gone to lately.

One of the things I am looking at doing is summarizing the article better because of it's immense size...so I don't plan to add in any of the more minor points (though I will be looking at that in the sub articles wherever it is relevant).

In regard to the kinderhook plates, I wouldn't say it isn't relevant, but I would say that it is not a major enough point to demand space in this article, but should get attention in the relevant sub article.

In the teachings section, what Smith taught can be represented properly in neutral language...although I do agree that the teachings section is fairly good in terms of summarization. However, Alienus made a good suggestion a little while up for how it could be summarized further and expanded in a sub article and I would like to look at this to help resolve the size issue.

I do indeed intend to take much initiative on addressing these issues, within the limits of my family obligations of course, so it will likely be in spurts and I plan to go through it a section at a time...but I am certainly not afraid of putting in substantial effort, even when there is extensive research required (like this, this, and this). I have no problem looking at both POVs when necessary and "writing for the enemy" (more on that here); my "religion" insists that I always be willing to change my views when provided with a convincing argument that trumps my current view, so I have a lot of practice looking at all sides of an issue.

Thanks for linking to that article, it looks very interesting and I do plan to read through it more thoroughly in the near future.

Don't worry, I am difficult to discourage...I look forward to your input during this editing adventure :). bcatt 09:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good; you have my support. Alienus 19:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Sock puppetry accusations

Trodel, you have accused It's Mormonlicious of being a sock puppet, to the extent of seeing yourself justified in using that as a sole excuse for reverting their edits (edits I might add, that had seemingly fine and appropriately descriptive edit summaries). However, you have failed to summon the common integrity required to state outright who you are accusing mormonlicious of being a sock puppet of and why. Yes, I'm sure most of us know the answer to this already, but it doesn't change the fact that if you are going to make these kinds of accusations, you need to at least do it in a responsible fashion. bcatt 08:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Personally I don't think it is your sock Bcatt. My only defense is that when a person comes to an article that they have never commented or edited before, makes their only edits there and uses Wikipedia terminology, they most likely have been around for a while. Granted it could be a new user since they don't understand the difference between attribution and weasel words(one of the examples is: "Critics/experts say that...") Sorry if I offended you - I think that the last week or so progress was being made towards a concensus that addressed some of your concerns - I had no intention of disrupting that. Trödel&#149;talk 13:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Then, pray tell, who's sock puppet do you think they are? We have been over this experience thing before in regard to FreedominThought...call up to your mind how the last accusations of this were addressed:

"Being an "experienced editor" and "established member of the wikipedia community", you should know better than to BITE the newcomers!...who is a sock puppet, and of whom?...be responsible for your vague accusations...As a matter of fact, some people, Trodel, like to learn how things work before jumping into it. I myself used Wikipedia for nearly an entire year before making my first edit and was relatively familiar by the time I did. Not all that "amazing", just a specific mode of learning and activity...it's called individuality...not everyone is exactly the same."

Do you honestly not think that blindly accusing someone of being a sock puppet (especially without specifying who the suspected puppeteer is) is not a personal form of weasel words? Do you not think it is more appropriate to leave a note on the talk page describing what weasel words are and requesting that the other user specify a critic or group of critics? Also, weasel words is beside the actual point anyway, as it was not Mormonlicious who added that phrase, and you changed words other than "Critics of the Church say"...please be sure in the future that your reasons are consistant with your actions. I'm not offended, anymore than I was offended by being accused of sock puppetry with FreedominThought...I think it's rather funny, actually. But I do not think it's funny that there is so much disruptive behaviour going on here, which is why I am addressing the issue. bcatt 18:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Glad you're not offended - Trödel&#149;talk 02:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Do I understand you correctly that you are refusing to be responsible for your accusation? bcatt 03:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

responsible how?? - it stands above with my sig - what method do you want me to indicate responsibility for my own edits besides that Trödel&#149;talk 14:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I cannot tell a lie: Trödel is my sock puppet. Feel free to shut down that account now. Alienus 05:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Responsible by stating clearly who you were accusing of having Mormonlicious as a sock puppet, as I already clearly indicated about 3 or 4 times. bcatt 19:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I did say who - "no one in particular" - but that doesn't change that they are likely a "second username" for someone. - as Mormonlicious admits below - that is a different issue since the difference between that and a sock are lost on me Trödel&#149;talk 22:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that evidence suggests that User:It's Mormonlicious is a sock puppet - especially based on contextual information (who knows whose sock puppet they are, but we'll track them down). The editor, registered two days ago, has a lot of information, not only about how Wikipedia works (lending others to believe that he has been registered before), but is very familar with the arguments and discussion of the page. Not that a new user cannot quickly gain this info, but it is unusual. Not that sock puppets really matter anyway. Ususally, the same argument over and over is still the same lame argument, and usually still doesn't lend to consensus of the experienced editors. There is no point to sock puppeting in a discussion like this - as it will not make a difference in the concensus gathering. I'll see if I can track down the IP address and compare to editors who have edited this page in the past three months. Not easy to do, but I'll track it down. -Visorstuff 21:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I must be someone's sock puppet too then...so, you better track down who's sock puppet I am while you're at it. Because I was quite aware of how wikipedia works and quickly familiarized myself with arguments on pages I intended to edit, very quickly after becoming an editor. You know, you aren't doing a very good job as an admin if you hold double standards based on what religion an editor is (something I've seen frm you in other issues on this article as well), and particularly by misstating the way wikipedia is intended to work in order to accomodate your own faction. bcatt 21:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Visorstuff needs to clarify in his mind that "sock puppet" and "second user name" are not synonyms, and then he needs to begin to deal with the article rather than the personalities involved. - It's Mormonlicious 21:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Who could have imagined that one single four-letter word written by Trödel in his edit summary would result in such rancor?
Lighten up, people! Put a sock over your madly-typing hands and cool off for a bit already! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.120.210.19 (talk • contribs) .

Holy Cow folks. All I said is that evidence lends that Mormonlicious is a sock puppet - which I am well aware of what one is, having been a Wikipedia admin longer than how long each of you have been editing on the wiki. In fact, you may want to read the definition yourself - "This account allows them to pose as a completely different user, sometimes to manufacture the illusion of support in a vote or argument" (Internet sock puppet). This is what the purpose of It's Mormonlicious is trying to do, but again, as stated before, is not an effective means in this instance.

Also Bcatt - no need to get so defensive - I'm not attacking anyone, just trying to figure out who is editing this page, and in this instance, what It's Mormonlicious is trying to accomplish. As you know, the editing history on wikipedia is important context in working with editors. I DO consider Changing usernames on a whim to make a point and to be anonymous is unethical. I could care less about if they are a sock puppet, as stated above, but knowing who they are helps me better address and work with them.

Also, if you read my post, you'll notice that I did say it is possible for new users to quickly learn, but that is the exception, not the rule. In this case, evidence supports the sock puppet theory.

Lastly, you wrote: "You know, you aren't doing a very good job as an admin if you hold double standards based on what religion an editor is (something I've seen frm you in other issues on this article as well)..."

This is a personal attack directed towards me, although I do appreciate the feedback. However, I am curious: since when have I held anyone to a double standard? In fact, if I remember right, I rebuked Storm Rider for his treatment of you about a month ago. I've not defended Mormons or non-Mormons. I'd appreciate you taking this discussion to my talk page and citing examples of this, as I consider the use of my administrative status a very important thing, and I believe I've done a good job of keeping things neutral. Look at my outreach to editors who are not Mormon to get them to come and edit LDSM pages. You obviously don't know my editing and Wikipedia history as well as I know yours.

I'd investigate (and have in the past) if a Mormon was using a sock puppet to push a NPOV point across. I hold all to the same standard, and frankly am suprized at how defensive you've gotten everytime I've stepped in on this article to defend your point of view, help guide the discussion, and help keep a NPOV and your work with other editors. It is frankly immature to repay my offered help in this way (no offense meant, just stating the facts). I'd appreciate the same courtesy I've been trying to show you (not that I have even addressed you in some time). Have I even told you what my religious beliefs are? or are you just assuming? I look forward to a continuation of this discussion on my talk page. -Visorstuff 23:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

This is an entirely necessary discussion — but this isn't a good place for it. Could y'all please move this to user talk pages? Tijuana Brass 00:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Please move to my talk page. -Visorstuff 00:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

For all you voyeurs out there. bcatt 04:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Issue with Mormonlicious edits

I guess I have been around long enough that I think shorthand will work. These edits are inappropriate because they are not attributed but instead make use of weasel words to, as the style guide says, "give the illusion of neutral point of view..." There may be some critics who claim he falsified the BoM but they should be specifically identified and then paraphrased or quoted along with a link so that other editors can verify it. Use of the term falsified without attribution to a specific critic or providing a reference is not keeping with Wikipedia standards. Trödel&#149;talk 13:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

And I guess I can recognize personal attacks -down to the subject line of this section - and suppression of points of view through selective use of citation demands. You are claiming it's wrong to use "falsifying" without citation, but acceptable to use "creating" without citation. You insist that the same words "Some critics" are weasel words when they discuss "falsify" but acceptable when they discuss "creation". That's nonsense, and you know it, or ought to. You say there may be critics who think that the BoM is false scripture, as if there is any room for doubt that there are. That's disingenuous, and you know it. You know that "critics" - i.e. non-Mormons - have said that the Book of Mormon is a 19th century forgery, or a false scripture, or characterized it as plagiarized, in part, from English translations of the Bible. Please stop removing things you disagree with, and please stop "softening" the expressed views of others - especially stop removing them only from the "side" you disagree with in the name of neutrality! Since you've decided to play the "cite" game -though we hardly need citations for word choice!-, nonetheless, here's one. [1] You can easily find more by running a Google search on "Book of Mormon" and "falsify". So please don't play the "I want a better citation" game. And please pay attention to the fact that it's the "Book of Mormon" and not the "Book of Momrmon", as you've now inserted about three times. - It's Mormonlicious 16:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, Mormonlicious did not add the weasel words you are referring to. bcatt 18:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Understood - but the addition of a charged word "falsified" after "Critics ... regard..." takes advantage of the existing weasel words to disguize the POV that falsified implies as NPOV by attributing it to "critics" Trödel&#149;talk 02:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

nothing at all was "disguized", you simply didn't want the critics' view presented forcefully in this article. - It's Mormonlicious 16:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Uhm, guys, what's the issue here? It's not at all controversial that many of Smith's critics say he wrote the BoM and that there were never any gold plates to translate from. This criticism has been around from the very start. Now, it would be POV to assert that Smith really did fake it, but it would also POV to pretend that this anything but a classic criticism.

Let me ask this way: What exactly would have to be changed to stop you from reverting It's text? Would it help if specific critics were mentioned? Does the word "falsify" offend you? Give me a clue. If you revert without offering reasonable alternatives, then you're just not doing your job as an editor. Alienus 17:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, easy now. Let's not make an edit war out of this... they never turn out good. Mormonlicious, you have a good point, and it's worthy of discussion here. So does Trodel, though, and believe me, he (she?) isn't attacking you personally. While I'm inclined to agree with you (Mormonlicious) in that a change in wording may be appropriate, don't go forcing things through and then making accusations in the edit summary. Like you said, this is something to be resolved on the Talk page. But keep in mind that you're a new user (or at least your account is new), and you're pushing a notable change into an article that has a whole lot of consensus and collaboration put into it. Seniority at Wikipedia doesn't necessarily translate to aptitude and good editing skills — but it usually does, and the reverts on your work aren't being done out of spite or an unwillingness to be open to discussion. Work things out here so everyone can reach an agreed-upon consensus. Then put in the changes. That'll save a lot of reverts on everyone's part. Tijuana Brass 18:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

That's just...how shall we say...contrary to fact. When Trodel bases reverts on who or what he perceives me to be, that's editing contra personam: it's not a valid basis for changes. And him calling me a sock puppet is a personal attack, and his explanation that he's tired of dealing with people who want to change this article is not an excuse for rudeness, though he seems to think it is. Visorstuff's use of "revert" without explanation is a particularly condescending form of "discussion". If Trodel's "tired" of strenuously ensuring that points of view other than his own are excluded from the article, perhaps it's time to recognize that that's not the purpose of editing here, and move on to another article. Perhaps he needs to recognize that the current state of the article is precisely why people may think it needs to be changed. The article is not so gem-like that the change of one or two words is a "notable change". One could read the article at present and leave ignorant of the fact that any appreciable number of Smith's contemporaries thought of him as a charletan or a fraud. - It's Mormonlicious 18:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

And since you're the last one to perform the revert "pending discussion", Tijuana Brass, why don't you start that discussion? - It's Mormonlicious 18:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I added to the fire. I did a unexplained revert of very very very very wordy text that didn't change the meaning of the paragraph at all. It just seemed nuanced and unneccessary edit. -Visorstuff 18:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Mormonlicious makes a very good point that has been on my mind also - citation is only demanded for opposing views, and then it is demanded for the smallest, most obvious point - of course, many Mormon views are "cited", with handly little links to preachy sources of questionable veracity. In addition, all opposing sources are labelled as "unreliable" with little or no basis for attachment of said label, while the Mormon sources are touted as "the only reliable ones" because they have "confirmation of their accuracy" from other Mormon sources...what is ignored, however, is that these Mormon sources do not back themselves up with historical method (unless it coincidentally happens to suit them, which is very rare). As has been pointed out, your claim that "Some critics say" is, in this case, weasel words is just plain silly...in fact, it's inaccurate only in that it sounds like only a few critics say this, when it is actually the primary reason for criticism - it would be more accurate to write "Critics of Mormonism say", unless you can show that there are Mormon critics who do not say this. An entire article could be devoted to just listing names of those critics to hold this view...ridiculous to need a citation for it, but if it makes the Mormons here feel better, why don't we say "Critics of Mormonism, such as Jerald and Sandra Tanner, point out that since there is no physical evidence that the "Golden Plates" ever existed, it is likely that Smith conceived the Book of Mormon himself rather than translating it from an ancient artifact."? That phrase (though it will be screamed that it is full of "weasel words") is based on historical method.

In addition, Mormonlicious is also correct that reverting "because s/he is a sock puppet" (without any actual reason for saying so, and without stating who's sock puppet s/he allegedly is, I might point out) is a logical fallacy of ad hominem attack (otherwise known as "shooting the messenger").

The only thing I do agree with is the part that he "falsified ancient documents" in regard to the BoM, evidence shows strongly that there were no artifacts for him to falsify...though there is much evidence that he falsified real documents for other Mormon propaganda. bcatt 20:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately it can't be a logicall fallacy or ad hominem attack since it is TRUE - still wondering why you are defending a "second username" Trödel&#149;talk 10:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Unless you can show that Mormonlicious is a sock puppet of me, Alienus, or FreedominThought, it is irrelevant, and therefore an ad hominem attack. bcatt 23:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOV: Mission Impossible?

Hello, Wikipedians,

I'm just a dabbler in wikipedia, but I've been watching this article with great interest for a couple of years now. The topic of Joseph Smith is one of the most controversial ones possible. Was he a prophet, as he claimed, or a fraud, as his opponents maintain? It's one or the other, folks (no, he wasn't insane). It's likely that a universal consensus on the matter will only occur at the world's "Game Over" event, should there be such a thing.

In the meantime, the debate rages on. And poor Wikipedia is a prime battleground. Almost everyone who might post to the article has a strong opinion on the matter. Often, those who believe he was a prophet have based their entire lifeview on this information. Others see believers as hopelessly deluded, and seek to show them their error.

It's a tug-o-war, NPOV rules or no NPOV rules.

What's the solution? Isn't the idea behind an encyclopedia to give the facts, and present reasonable, well-documented interpretations of them? But both sides will continue to fight over wording and nuances, literally until the end of the world. It will never please everybody, and since everybody can edit the document.... yikes.

Maybe divide the article into four parts:

"Joseph Smith, Jr.: The Facts" contains only docuemnted facts. What happened, according to who, what records show. Stuff that both sides can mostly agree on (there will always be the unreasonable fringe; ignore them).

"Joseph Smith, Jr.: The Fraud" holds material from the point of view of those who maintain that he was a fraud, or at least deluded.

"Joseph Smith, Jr.: The Prophet" holds material from the point of view of those who maintain that he was a prophet, or at least once was a prophet.

"Joseph Smith, Jr.: NPOV Summary" holds a smaller set of information, suitable for casual reading by those seeking a surface scan of who he was. Strict NPOV in here, of course.

I think this scheme might be possible, because all sides can have their say, without having to delete each others' content, step on each others' toes.

At least we can be grateful that Mormons aren't as touchy about their prophet as Islam. :) Wadsworth 21:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Almost sounds like a good idea, at least as far as reducing conflict, but it's called POV forking...even if you are suggesting that this is done within a single article, it is still in violation of wikipedia policy and guidelines. bcatt 20:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, of course someone else thought of this before me. :) I read the article you referenced about forking, and I noticed this: "Although it may be advisable to follow it, it is not policy." Perhaps this is one of the few times when a forked article would be legitimate? Wadsworth 23:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this would be an instance where a content fork would be approriate. A very good example of where a "content fork" is adviseable is with topics such as Evolution vs. Creationism...here, each article would concentrate primarily on discussing what each of the topics is, reserve some space to introduce the fact that there is an opposing topic and why, and provide a clear link to the opposing topic. bcatt 01:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

And so the war continues...Wadsworth 17:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

More intro edits

• Moved "Smith's followers revere him as a latter-day prophet" down to the second paragraph where it is more on topic
• Changed "were" to "are" in regard to Christian non-acceptance of Mormon beliefs, as this continues in the present day
• Described who opposed his military and political power
• Added the opposite view to the above point
• Added another significant point of opposition (polygamy)

I do realize that the article size is now increased by 1kb, but as I have stated numerous times, one of my goals here is to touch on all the major points, describing them as briefly as possible, while moving all the finer details to sub articles...it is not uncommon for an issue to temporarily increase just prior to it's decrease.

I also realize that there is bound to be much hate directed at me (and attempts to start an edit war) for referring to Smith's practice of polygamy, but there is a lot of evidence that this occured, and little to no evidence (besides Smith's own word - which is not really evidence) that it didn't occur. And, in fact, Smith contradicts himself by claiming publicly that he did not practice it, while the D&C (a section which came from Smith's own mouth) specifically says: Joseph {Smith, Jr.} is allowed to practice polygamy in the name of God, so don't try to stop him or punish him for it.

Out of curiosity, I followed that link to the quote in the D&C... are you sure you got the right one? The text you quoted doesn't seem to have anything to do with polygamy, but rather with priesthood: "Now, as touching the law of the priesthood, there are many things pertaining thereunto. Verily, if a man be called of my Father, as was Aaron, by mine own voice, and by the voice of him that sent me, and I have endowed him with the keys of the power of this priesthood, if he do anything in my name, and according to my law and by my word, he will not commit sin, and I will justify him. Let no one, therefore, set on my servant Joseph; for I will justify him; for he shall do the sacrifice which I require at his hands for his transgressions, saith the Lord your God." The next few verses talk about polygamy, but doesn't say Joseph practiced it: "And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood--if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then he is justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else. And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified." After having said this, I must also mention that it seems very likely, almost certain, that Joseph did indeed have more than just a few wives at the same time. It is also interesting to note that none of these women are know to have borne children by him, as far as I know.

The link provided here goes to the following verse:

"Let no one, therefore, set on my servant Joseph; for I will justify him; for he shall do the sacrifice which I require at his hands for his transgressions, saith the Lord your God."

which is immediately followed by the two verses linked to in the new intro:

"And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else. And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified."

It is pretty obvious that this is a "commandment" that Smith is justified in committing polygamy. Regardless of whether or not he practiced it, he did indeed teach it, whether it came from God or not, Smith taught that polygamy was an acceptable, and even preferable, practice among those in the Mormon priesthood, which is shown in other parts of Mormon texts (which I don't have handy atm), that say that it is preferable to breed like crazy...much easier to do that if you can have several women pregnant at once, wouldn't you say?

Smith did indeed have several wives, one who was 14 and whom Smith prevented from marrying the man she actually loved so that Smith could marry her. In fact, he proposed to many young girls, often successfully, threatening them with eternal damnation if the refused...which, at that time was considered a form of rape (and sill is, in some areas) - not that Smith cared what the "Gentile laws" were. Not only this, but he also married sisters, teenagers that were his legal wards and therefore his parental responsibility. He also married his sister-in-law. The list goes on. Apologists who admit Mormon polygamy claim that Emma was "supportive" of Smith's polygyny, and fail to mention that she only became "supportive" after Smith suddenly "had a revelation" that God would destroy Emma if she did not comply.

As for DNA proof that Smith fathered children by anyone other than Emma: not finding live people in the current day with DNA matching Smith's does not mean that Smith did not father children by anyone else, it just means that no descendants of Smith have been discovered (if a grown child attempts to find their absent father through DNA, yet does not discover who their father is, does that mean that they have no father? Obviously faulty logic). I find it funny though that the Mormon church claims the lack of DNA evidence (because there is plenty of other evidence) shows that Smith did not have sex with his plural wives (when they even admit that he had plural wives), yet the actual, acquired DNA evidence that American Indians are of Asian ancestry somehow does not show that American Indians are not of middle eastern descent (as claimed by Smith and the Mormon church in his stead). Interesting...very "interesting". bcatt 01:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh hey maybe I should've read this before I made my edits. But at any rate I'll just make a couple corrections. The Mormon Church doesn't claim that Smith never practiced polygamy, and in fact old headers have mentioned polygamy as a point of contention. I didn't read most of your crap about he married this and this because I don't care that much. The DNA evidence that establishes links to Asian populations and not Semitic ones isn't relevant at all to Mormonism or the veracity of Book of Mormon claims. Also, I've never heard the Mormon Church use DNA evidence to refute Smith's participation in polygamy and again we don't deny that Smith did practice polygamy. CofC people do (or at least did), maybe some smaller sects, but not the "Mormon Church" you're referring to. And at least the DNA evidence regarding Smith can be construed as applicable. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 11:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

bcatt offers some low-hanging fruit for me to pluck off the poison branch, and slice open to expose the ashes inside. You say that Joseph claimed he was justified in "committing polygamy." Your term "committing" sounds like it was a sin or a misdeed. You forget that it wasn't against the law. And polygyny isn't against the law of God, either. If the arrangement was with consenting adults, where is the crime or sin? Ah yes, it was contrary to the culture. Good American Christian families simply don't have one husband to several wives, that's a middle-eastern thing that Arabs do.

You have a lot of words about Joseph forcing himself on young girls, threatening eternal damnation, etc. Those are lies, either yours or from wherever you got your information. For example, what about the 14-year-old girl? Isn't it true that he married her? Here's what many don't understand: there are two concepts, "sealing" (a prieshood ordinance that binds a man and a woman together in the eternities), and "marriage" (a culturally acceptable ceremony for a couple to become husband and wife). Many women were sealed to Joseph, some after his death, some before. Didn't he have marital relations with his wives? Possibly some of them. Certainly not with a 14-year-old girl who insisted on being sealed to him, and then later changed her mind when she fell in love with a young man.

Your whole agenda is plain. For whatever reason, you would like to have people believe that Joseph Smith was a fraud, sex maniac, swindler, child molester, war monger, etc. etc. etc. It's the same old story. It's because of people like you that he kept getting put in jail on construed charges, that he was finally murdered by an angry mob. I know you, you wouldn't just hold coats, you'd be throwing stones at Stephan, who told the people he saw God the Father standing with Jesus Christ on his right hand. Wadsworth 22:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

In fact, polygamy was as illegal then as it is now, which is why he lied about it. As to it not being against the "law of God":

this "resort to distortion {is} called "Mormon logic". {The writer} remembers her father justifying such evasions with the familiar saying, "we must sometimes disobey a lesser law to keep a higher one".

It's faulty logic, since there is no proof that there actually is a God in the first place. A 14 year old is not a consenting adult, and anyone who is manipulated with threats into a situation they do not want to be in is not consenting regardless of their age...again, faulty logic. Actually, the 14 year old did not insist on being sealed to him, she did not want to marry him, and she had a sweetheart before Smith forced himself on her. Evidence shows that he did have sex with the 14 year old that he forced into marriage and that she was rather distraught over the situation. My agenda is to have this article tell the truth and not be used as a recruitment vehicle...you can use the Mormon wiki for that. bcatt 23:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

In before bcatt reverts me

Hi guys.

I changed the header. NOW OMG don't revert me. What happened to the old header? That was a good header, I'ma change it back more like that was. brb la cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 10:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

O.K. I've grafted in parts of the header from 25 January. The header as it is presently is better than the header was before I changed it, I believe. I believe this for these reasons:

• The old header went into detail unbefitting an introductory paragraph. The things it detailed were highly suspicious, almost as if they were crafted to demonstrate that Smith was unloyal or bad. Isn't that suspicious BCATT?
• Organization, et cetera, sucked more.

Have a nice day everyone. : ) cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 11:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Also I've been reading the first two paragraphs of the Early life section. Is there a reason we're mostly being like, "Ya he said something like this and his mom said something like this" when we could be using the real quotes? cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 11:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

That's right, it needs reverting

Why do I call this vandalism?

• Intentional insertion of POV language (intensely berated, immense political power, enemies)

K we could take out intensely and immense. Enemies, by definition [2], are people that oppose you. These people opposed Smith by every estimation, enemies is accurate.cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 23:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Material in that edit is closer to description for "reasons" given above than the material it is supposed to be refuting

Why do I call this trolling?

• Edit was performed specifically to stir up trouble, a very clear attempt to try to get a rise out of me

No man the edit was performed because the header sucks as you made it. The talk page was directed at you yeah but if you weren't here I wouldn't have even talked it. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 23:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comments do not provide justification for edits they are "supposed" to support

Yeah they do. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 23:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comments contain personal attacks

No they don't.cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 23:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• The entire performance is disruptive

K? It improves the article. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 23:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Changing it back for the following reasons:

• Smith's ideas are still opposed to this day, so "by his contemporaries" is inaccurate

By his contemporaries is not inaccurate, Smith was opposed by these. Maybe some word changing would help there but it doesn't justify a complete revert. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 23:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• "Intensely berated" already explained above
• Ditto for "immense political power"
• Whoopity-doo, he was self-appointed mayor unopposed only by the brainwashed people who followed him, and opposed by everyone else

Whoopity-doo, that doesn't changed anything. And I consider calling me and other members of my religion brainwashed a personal attack OMG BCATT. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 23:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• How can one be racist and an abolitionist? Sure, he pretended to be an abolitionist, but only because anyone who is someone else's slave doesn't have enough time to devote to being a slave to Smith's "church"

Smith wasn't racist, this is POV, you suck (personal attack ftw). cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 23:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• The sentence on polygamy is factually inaccurate as well as vague

No it's not.cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 23:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• His "martyrdom" demands enough space in the article as it is

This edit has the following effect:

• The most important reason for his notability is identified (founder and leader, size of the "church")

This explained amply in my rendition. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 23:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• All major opinions regarding this notability are identified (followers, Christians, ex-Mormons, general public, politicians)

Ex-Mormons are the same as non-Mormons, everyone else is identified the same in my thing. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 23:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• All points are properly attributed
• Information is actually organized

Information is organized in mine as well. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 23:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

bcatt 15:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

(minor nitpick about Talk page format: it's very confusing to try to read comments by two different people interleaved with each other. Cookiecaper, do you think next time you could reply separately, or even copy the text you're responding to and italicize the parts you're quoting? Just for readability in case anyone else wants to keep up with the discussion. thanks. Wesley 16:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC))

Seconded, Wesley! On the point about the edit summary: I don't think that a description like "revert vandalism/trolling" is at all accurate, even granting all the above points of argument as to why they may have been "bad edits". Essentially one is not simply accusing someone of making bad edits, but of doing so in bad faith, and there's a reason we have guidelines against that. Using such characterisations may help to vent one's frustrations in an editing dispute, but they're more likely to then escalate it, than to help the other party to see the error of their ways. Alai 00:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

No other Religious Leader is treated with such a negative POV

I have just finished reading the articles: Muhammad, Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Charles Taze Russell. None of these articles approach the topic with the vehemently negative POV that Bcatt and her ilk, those of similar persuasion. All four individuals were just a controversial in their day as Joseph Smith was in his. Bcatt attempts to hid behind a veil of NPOV, but she perverts it very principles in order to achieve her own POV. I encourage each editor on this page to read each article and then pattern this article in a similar manner. The POV axe lies solely in Bcatts hands. I label her anti-Mormon because she proves her axe grinding ways simply by her arguments and desire to turn this article into something that is not found anywhere else on WIKI. If she were honest she would step forward in state that she is anti-Mormon rather than hiding behind her constant statment, "I am only trying to make this article meet NPOV standards". Poppycock, no other article meets the standards she desires. Storm Rider ^(talk) 20:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

whoah, you're more fiery than i am --Nerd42 21:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Even in the Talk:Astrology article, boy now there is one that we could throw tons of critisism, we find the statement,

"Astrology should be defined in its own right before it is contrasted with opposing viewpoints. This seems to be the way that other articles are done, especially ones which carry theological connotations. So yeah, I think that we should start a major overhaul of the article. This has already been started by Bcatt, but we still have a long way to go. --Chris Brennan 03:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I find it odd that Bcatt can be supportive when it is an issue she is committed to, but for those she opposes, out the door goes any form of balance, wave the flag of NPOV, and then criticize the blazes out of and forget anything having to do with historical facts. Storm Rider ^(talk) 00:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, I point out the typical Mormon behaviour of presenting selective facts. My response to the above comment was: "In the interest of NPOV, the opposition does need to be properly represented"...stick to the facts! bcatt 05:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this article is well served by personalising any dispute that may have arisen here. Please especially, try to avoid such obviously unnecessary escalating steps like dragging in commentary on essentially unrelated matters, and of broad-brush statements about "the opposition". In short, WP:NPA. Alai 00:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I may be new to WIKI, but could someone please answer Storm Rider's question? I just went to those article and they are nothing like this page for Joseph Smith. Why should this page be treated differently? Is an encyclopeic article to inform the reader about the topic, in this case the founder of Mormonism, or is the purpose of the article to proselyte why no one should ever give Mormonism a second thought? If this is just a stage for anti-Mormonism and people who are against others, I don't think I will be interested in participating. It is a shame and seems like a loss of something that offers so much potential. 12.158.102.191 16:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)