Talk:Joseph Smith/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

Founded a Movement?

Okay, if we're going to start undoing this thing, let's start at the beginning.

The opening sentence states that Joseph Smith, "...was the founder of the Latter Day Saint movement, also known as Mormonism... ."

How does someone found a movement? He founded a Church (The Church of Christ which he later, through declared revelation named, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints). If you wanted to say that, I'm fine with it. But in keeping with the negative slant it could at least be written, '... inspired and led the early Latter-Day Saint movement."

Additionally, if the implication is that the RLDS are included in the "movement" then I doubt you would aka them as Mormons. I'm not sure, but I haven't seen anything stating RLDS members are respectful of, or equally identified by, the term 'Mormon.'

It would be much better stated,

'Joseph Smith, under the declared direction of God, was the founder of the Church of Christ (later renamed The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints). Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints today are frequently referred to as Mormons. The Reformed Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints also claim direct ecclesiastical authority from Joseph Smith.'

Sure it's a little wordier, but at least it's not misleading or grammatically confusing. 99.199.147.225 (talk) 02:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)Canadiandy

The meaning of "Mormonism" has changed over time, but whether or not the Community of Christ respects the term, that church certainly came from the "Latter Day Saint movement", which is today's politically correct way of saying the "Mormon movement". I'm pretty sure that history supports the "aka Mormonism" statement. As for the "how do you found a movement?" question...I'm not sure how correct it is to say that JSJr. "founded" a movement, but if we are to consider the religious change that he instigated a "movement", then I think it's safe to say that he "founded" it. I don't see the current wording as "misleading or grammatically confusing", which is why I prefer it to the proposed, wordier statement you suggested. ...but what do you think? ~B F^izz _(talk) 03:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The term Mormonism includes only the LDS Church, Mormon fundamentalism, and a few other churches and individuals who recognize Brigham Young as a prophet. It does not include the Community of Christ, which considers the term improper and maybe even offensive as applied to them, because it implies polygamy. However, they are part of the Latter Day Saint movement. I don't see any problem with calling Smith the "founder" of the movement. Although the term Latter Day Saint movement didn't exist in his lifetime, he said he was the founder of the "Latter-Day Saints": In the Wentworth letter, he said, "I have written the following sketch of the rise, progress, persecution, and faith of the Latter-Day Saints, of which I have the honor, under God, of being the founder." COGDEN 05:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

How about if we modeled this rewrite after the Bob Jones Sr article, Bob Jones was another important American religious figure. It starts: "Robert Reynolds Jones, Sr. (October 30, 1883—January 16, 1968) was an American evangelist, pioneer religious broadcaster and the founder and first president of Bob Jones University."

With that model, the first sentence of this article could say "Joseph Smith, Jr. (1820) was an American prophet, pioneer of the American West, and the founder and first president of a church known today as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". In the next few short intro sentences we could explain that more than one body of followers exists, and use the sentence I am working on in the above 2008 stats section to give an indication of how many people today are members of the church he founded. Would anybody like to do it Bob Jones style? Another reason I brought up the Bob Jones article is because it's crisp, easy to read, professional, has some of the same editors as this page, and seems to avoid many of the wrenching-can't-say-anything-at-all-for-fear-of-bias hangups that plague the J.S. article. 98.108.141.145 (talk) 13:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The statements about Jones are neutral and easily provable. Those you've suggested for Smith are not. Smith was not a "prophet"; he was a "self-declared prophet." (The date 1820 is unexplained.) Smith died in Illinois and therefore was not a pioneer of the American West in any modern understanding of that term. He was not only the founder of the LDS Church but also of all the smaller branches of the Restoration, which you've left unmentioned. Every phrase in the Bob Jones article is unchallengeable; every phrase in your hypothetical is disputable. --John Foxe (talk) 15:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. In addition, I don't see any "can't-say-anything-at-all-for-fear-of-bias hangups". Almost everything about Smith can be stated in a neutral way. (I.E., "To most readers, Smith is viewed at best as delusional, and at worst as a fraud, while Latter Day Saints consider him to be a prophet"--which I'm not proposing because I think we don't need to explicitly say this, just giving an example.) The real issue with this article is that there is too much to say, and too many viewpoints, to fit within this summary-style article. Therefore, we have to triage the information presented. Whatever information gets the most air-time in peer-respected academic sources can be mentioned here, briefly, and everything else can be explored in greater detail in the sub-articles. COGDEN 18:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I suggest we leave it exactly as it is. That way it will help the article maintain its consistently confusing flow, its religious insensitivity, and its beautiful brevity (never let the truth get in the way of brevity, eh). I mean Joseph Smith legally organizing a Church, which was registered in New York according to State law, sounds so historically questionable, (who knows that the State recorder wasn't a Mormon and so unreliable as a witness) better to have him found a 'movement' and then let historians interpret what that 'movement' is according to their academic prominence. I mean a movement is sufficently vague as to be irrefutable, right? And even better, then COgden ,the orthodox Mormon that he is, will be able to maintain his open-mindedness as he defends it ad infinitum, ad nauseum. Again, don't get me wrong, I have no issue with COgden's actions or views as a member of the Church. The Church respects differences of opinion. What I do resent is the contributers here acknowledging him as the token Mormon contributor when his opinions here seem quite non-reflective of the general membership of the Church. Didn't Luther consider himself a Catholic?199.60.41.15 (talk) 22:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)Canadiandy

Canadiandy, we're all going to give you some slack because you're new to Wikipedia, but you should avoid engaging in ad hominems.(WP:NPA)--John Foxe (talk) 22:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me John Foxe, please point out the personal attack in that statement above. For I cannot see anything uncivil with the statement he is making. Routerone (talk) 22:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to the sentence: "COgden, the orthodox Mormon that he is, will be able to maintain his open-mindedness as he defends it ad infinitum, ad nauseum." The sentence, though an attempt at sarcasm, violates WP rules that prohibit "religious...epithets directed against another contributor" and "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views."(WP:NPA)--John Foxe (talk) 22:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Canadiandy, let's not get personal here. I am a committed multi-generation Mormon, but let's separate that from the editing here, which must be neutral. I'm committed to neutrality. On the issue of whether to exclude other LDS faiths than the LDS Church, there is no reason to do that. These other faiths claim Smith as much as the LDS Church does, and they disagree that the church Smith founded in 1830 in New York is the same legal organization that Brigham Young incorporated in Utah in 1851. In fact, there is a U.S. legal case where a judge ruled that the RLDS Church was the legal continuation of Smith's 1830 church, which is why the Kirtland Temple belongs to the Community of Christ. So there are multiple viewpoints here that need to be respected. COGDEN 00:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The statement "...the contributers here [acknowlede COgden] as the token Mormon contributor" is entirely untrue, from my experience working on this article. No one is the "token Mormon contributor" or "token anti-Mormon contributor" here, everyone comes from a wide spectrum of viewpoints and has something useful to contribute to the article. Now, can we please discuss the topic at hand (the use of the phrase "founded a movement", and of "LDS movement, aka Mormonism") rather than talking about each other? What is it that you find objectionable, Candidady, about the use of "founded a movement"? You act as if it were insufficient or even derogatory, when I see it as the complete opposite. ...but what do you think? ~B F^izz _(talk) 01:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I apologize if the term "token Mormon" was offensive to anyone. By it I meant the tendency to argue that I shouldn't be offended by the tone of the article because there are other Mormons posting that aren't. As to why I do not like the term 'movement' it is because it lends the suggestion that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is somehow merely a result of individuals gathering behind a shared ideal. But for myself, this dismisses the belief that it results from a theocratic organization (top down, not bottom up). The strength of the Church comes from its divine authority, not merely the number of people who joined. Communism is a movement. Environmentalism is a movement. Mormonism (or better the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and the Church of Christ, and the Community of Christ), like Catholicism and Judaism, are not mere movements, they are religions. 99.199.147.225 (talk) 04:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)Canadiandy—Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.199.147.225 (talk) 04:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, please feel free to be you. If you feel the article's tone offensive, then suggest specific examples for improvement. I've found this is usually a good way to get things done. Secondly, thank you for explaining why you dislike the use of "movement". While I tend to agree with you, I also recognize that historians have called it a movement. Can anyone else justify the use of the term "movement"? One reason might be that it allows us to lump the LDS, RLDS, and FLDS all together in few words while still remaining politically correct. Quoth the first line of the Latter Day Saint movement article: "The Latter Day Saint movement is a group of Restorationist religious denominations and adherents..." ...but what do you think? ~B F^izz _(talk) 05:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the main reason is convention, and that Latter Day Saint movement is the best, most neutral term used by academia. This term has a long history in Wikipedia. It became kind of a standard back in late 2003, when a few of us (I think the suggestion was by John Hamer, now President-Elect of the John Whitmer Historical Association) were looking for a term that could apply to all the religions founded by Joseph Smith, and looking at the literature, the term Latter Day Saint movement was the the best one to be found. The term has been used for many decades in this way, most often by RLDS/CofC scholars. But since 2004, the term has been used increasingly frequently by LDS Church authors too. (Maybe--who knows?--because the term has received exposure through Wikipedia, which presents an interesting circularity problem.) In addition, a number of LDS Church authors, including Leonard Arrington, have described Mormonism as a "movement". (See his The Mormon Experience: a History of the Latter-Day Saints.) So the "movement" aspect of it is not controversial in the field. COGDEN 03:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Also important to note: it is explicitly stated at the end of the intro's first paragraph that "[Smith] organized the Church of Christ." That detail is not forgotten or left aside when we also state that he founded the Latter Day Saint movement. ...but what do you think? ~B F^izz _(talk) 04:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Back to Canadiandy's original, excellent point about founding a movement - ditto canadiandy. Check out how the following wikipedia articles handled the word "Prophet": Muhammad, Moses and Jesus. Now think about this, if J.S. had never claimed to be a prophet, we wouldn't even be talking about him today. If you need a neutral confirmation that it's really OK to use the "P" word, check out the PBS documentary on Joseph Smith (http://www.pbs.org/americanprophet/). Taking another stab at it, and I still think the word pioneer should also fit in there, After all more than 10,000 people moved west because of him while he was still alive. Taking a stab at it:

Joseph Smith, Jr. (December 23, 1805 – June 27, 1844) was the founder of The Church of Christ (with a link explaining the name change and other dominations), a pioneer of the American West, and is regarded by his followers as a prophet. Proudneutralmormon (talk) 11:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

That's not bad, except that the Church of Christ no longer exists by that name except for the Temple Lot denomination and the tiny Cutlerite denomination, so it's more relevant to say he founded the Latter Day Saint movement in this context. I don't think anyone has expressed any issue with saying he is regarded as a prophet within the movement, which is true. COGDEN 16:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

As I stated above, that he founded the Church of Christ is explicitly stated in the first paragraph of the intro. That his followers considered him a prophet is explicitly stated in the third. I don't think it wise to try and pack all that punch into the first sentence. The "pioneer of the American West" wasn't really Joseph Smith so much as Brigham Young; Smith was killed in the Nauvoo era of the church. ...but what do you think? ~B F^izz _(talk) 19:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd say that the three most notable things about Joseph Smith are probably as follows, and I'd say in this order:

1. founder, revered prophet, and early theocratic political leader of the Latter Day Saint movement;
2. creator of the Book of Mormon;
3. minor 1844 candidate for President of the United States.

COGDEN 04:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

New subsections of "Legacy" section

Monuments and memorials

I think that having a "monuments and memorials" section is excessive and unnecessary. If, however, we are going to pursue this section, we might want to also create a Monuments and memorials of Joseph Smith, Jr. article. ...but what do you think? ~B F^izz _(talk) 02:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I created the stub, and I'm not convinced that it's necessary, but a fair number of similar biographical articles have such a section. Maybe you're right. Other possibilities might want to include are a section on fictional portrayals, and a section on physical characteristics. Also, maybe a historiographic section entitled something like "Writings about Joseph Smith", that would cover the history of historical treatments about Smith. COGDEN 19:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Writings

Having a "writings" section is a good idea, but I don't think it belongs as a subsection of "legacy". Creating the Writings of Joseph Smith, Jr. article may be a good idea as well, even if it ends up simply being a list. But be prepared: this article will open up a can of worms as we try to find neutral ways of dealing with the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants. ...but what do you think? ~B F^izz _(talk) 02:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

IMHO I always think of an encyclopedia as a place you go to get a short summary on a topic, with references to other sources if you want to learn more. If I wanted to write a book or website about J.S. I can do that on my own. So I would rather remove and truncate some sections from the current J.S. article (and I am not addressing the cousins and spinoffs of this article that exist) altogether, and condense it down to a few well sourced paragraphs. Like three to five readable paragraphs. So for a writings section -- I would have a few references probably as footnotes to his most significant written work. 74.98.91.182 (talk) 06:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly in principle that this article should be primarily a concise summary and pointer toward a more in-depth analysis in other articles and sources. But I think it should still be a pretty comprehensive summary--much more than 3-5 paragraphs. So that one day we can achieve featured status, I figure there ought to be no more than about 50K characters of readable text (not including footnotes and images, etc.) at the very absolute maximum--probably a bit lower in the 30-40K range if possible. Right now, we are at about 51K, and we still need to make room for a little bit of new material. I think that means we need to conservatively trim and streamline some material. Before anybody removes content, however, we need to make sure nothing is deleted from Wikipedia as a whole. Useful material should be moved to one of the sub-articles.

I also agree with creating a sub-list about Smith's writings (we can include speeches, too). For that, we can draw upon the Joseph Smith Papers project that the LDS Church is doing. In this article, we would include just a summary and a link to the sub-article. I imagine it would look something like List of scientific publications by Albert Einstein. COGDEN 19:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Well said. I agree completely. Featured status seems a long way away, but I think we'll get there eventually. ...but what do you think? ~B F^izz _(talk) 19:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, Smith's writings are inevitably intertwined with his "Distinctive views and teachings". Just something to be aware of as we move forward. I'm sure once we get some material in those sections, it will become clear to us how to avoid duplication within the article. ...but what do you think? ~B F^izz _(talk) 20:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Sections to be trimmed

Please create a subsection here (or another section on the talk page) to discuss particular sections that you feel can be more concisely summarized

Due to the addition of new sections, this is an inevitable point of discussion. I invite you all to look the article over and begin to discuss sections that can be reduced. But there's no rush; take your time. ...but what do you think? ~B F^izz _(talk) 20:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Life in Nauvoo > Doctrine

This will overlap with our new sections. Doctrinal specifics can be moved to the Eschatology and cosmology section, while the historically-related material can be condensed. ...but what do you think? ~B F^izz _(talk) 20:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Life in Nauvoo > Plural Marriage

While historically significant, the level of detail seems deeper than summary. Detail should be pushed to the Origin of Latter Day Saint polygamy, and doctrine to the Teachings > Family subsection. Obviously some detail and doctrine is relevant to the chronological presentation of his life, and should so remain. ...but what do you think? ~B F^izz _(talk) 20:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Joseph Smith daguerreotype

Since we have all kinds of artistic renditions of Joseph Smith, Jr. in the article, shouldn't we also include the only alleged photograph of him somewhere? Not at the top, though, the color portrait is much more engaging. Perhaps we could put it in the monuments/memorials section, if that ever takes off. ...but what do you think? ~B F^izz _(talk) 19:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there is very good evidence (at least presently) that this is an actual photo of Joseph Smith. It's probably a photograph of the painting that we already have at the top of the article. I know there is a website that promotes the photo, but I don't think that work has been peer reviewed. COGDEN 03:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Edits by Routerone

I have reverted Routerone's recent edits on both substantive and stylistic grounds.--John Foxe (talk) 20:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

No, you've done it because I am battling against your blatant negative wording of the page. FAIR's research has got your intentions on wikipedia and your background pretty much confirmed in what you are trying to do here. There was nothing wrong with my edits.

You think you can just manipulate the article to your deliberate "Anti-LDS" style (see FAIR's resources on you which revealed hundreds of deliberate Neutrality policy violations on numerous LDS topics) and then protect it from any edit that attempts to go against that, this is a free encyclopedia and that article does not belong to you! Routerone (talk) 20:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I've certainly improved this article stylistically, but even a cursory examination of recent edits should demonstrate that this is not my article. In fact, there's no way any non-Mormon could "own" it. FAIR is (as usual) wrong.--John Foxe (talk) 20:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I've looked over Routerone's edits, and indeed some of them contain mistakes of wiki-syntax, wiki-style, and grammar. I'm working to repair some of them. I'm also trying to address any pertinent issues raised by Routerone. COGDEN 20:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Routerone, do not single out John Foxe like that. There are plenty of other people that have reviewed this article and made improvements towards presenting all angles of Smith's life. FAIR holds Foxe as an example of why Mormons shouldn't take Wikipedia to be doctrinal, but does not condemn him as severely as you imagine. As has been said many times before, please focus your energies on specific content, not specific editors. Make small changes and explain what you are doing clearly. Try to find wording that anyone—Mormon, anti-Mormon, or otherwise—could agree with. Foxe, thanks for being clear about your actions and reasoning. Do consider adapting new edits rather than reverting them. The shiny revert button is much easier, but nearly all (non-vandalism) edits contain a gem of human thought that can strengthen the article. ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 01:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

In the interest of ethical, responsible, and dignified research, I have to side with Routerone here. FAIR is an excellent and intelligent research site. Foxe's personal attack that it is "as usual" wrong is simply not true and only seems to reveal bias. In fact, based on what is becoming clear is an agenda to paint Smith negatively, I propose a reversal of all Foxe's edits. I have recently taken some time to read Bushman's ARSR and was shocked. I was prepared for research highly critical of Smith (as evidenced in the way this Foxe-driven article reads presently). Instead I found a huge volume of research painting Smith as an intelligent, sincere, respected, compassionate, intuitive, and dignified leader who inspired many and showed a visionary approach to religion, politics, and family life. However Foxe seems to have discarded the positive research in favor of the inflammatory. Data manipulation is a serious threat to research driven articles such as this one. It is clear to me that until Foxe is prepared to answer the question I have posed frequently ('What was your opinion and POV of Smith when you began your research here?') I can only assume he must be considered as unreliable, biased, and hostile towards any positive influence or actions taken by the article's subject Joseph Smith. This fact therefore make his contributions suspect and in need or reversal. 207.216.63.118 (talk) 04:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

I was not aware that our friend Fox had gained such notoriety at FAIR. If they actually cited his efforts here, it seems a bit strange to me, but I guess stranger things have happened.

Anon, I would reject any effort to revert any editor's edits solely because of (s)/he made them. What is important is the value of the edit made; nothing more and nothing less. Drop this line of thinking immediately. It is unproductive and will work against you.

Fox is most definitely partisan, but that has no impact on the value of his edits per se. Yes, at times it may appear that he filters references for the outlandish and the sensational. At times, he can be blind to the POV of his comments, but that can be said for all of us. What is required is for other editors to balance his (and everyone's) edits. If you are willing to put in the time, provide required references, you will find that the article will be improved and a more well rounded article will result. If you are not willing to make the effort, then there is really nothing to talk about. Cheers and good luck. I hope you are willing to make the effort to improve Wikipedia. --^StormRider 05:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Well said. For myself, I'm glad that there are a number of non-Mormon editors who have taken an interest in these Mormonism-related articles. It's this kind of back-and-forth that results in the most neutral and interesting articles. COGDEN 06:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

COgden

As a Mormon I find that condescending. I don't care whether an editor is Mormon, Non-Mormon, Jewish, or atheist. I am simply interested in whether they can contribute fairly to the discussion. And clearly Foxe has demonstrated a biased POV. I actually find the back and forth part of the problem. It has created a Group Dynamic where non-Mormons are given higher status, Mormons are viewed cautiously as they are likely "biased" (but they get bonus points if they sit idly by while their revered prophet is defamed and slandered) and bitter ex-Mormons are exalted because they have the real 'dirt.' This article has become a sham. Compare it to the posts back in August 1993 before obvious biases entered the discussion.

This article is to historic research what American attack ads are to political debate. Unfair, biased, long-winded and inflammatory. I don't care what you say, I am highly offended by the attack tone this article takes in its apparent aim to smear Joseph Smith.

And from my POV attacking another religion or its leader in this way is a mighty un-Christian thing to do.

207.216.63.118 (talk) 06:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

This article is not perfect and will never be perfect, but it's the give-and-take that will make the article eventually as neutral as possible under WP:NPOV. I've been editing these articles since 2003, and I haven't seen the dynamic you are referring to. Occasionally, there have been accusations of bias on both sides: Mormons accuse non-Mormons of being anti-Mormon, and non-Mormons accuse Mormons of being cultish wackos. But in the long run, these are just blips in the history of the articles. People who have an axe to grind don't usually stick around long enough to make a lot of permanent contributions to the articles. They usually follow either of two paths: either (1) they stop editing because they get frustrated with their inability to influence the process and with the strictures of Wikipedia policies like WP:NPOV, or (2) they learn how to use policies like WP:NPOV to their advantage, and adapt to the normal collaborative process of Wikipedia editing. Mormons have no advantage or disadvantage in comparision to non-Mormons in editing these articles, because WP:NPOV will protect either side. If something is not neutral either in a pro-Mormon or anti-Mormon way, there are ways to change it within the Wikipedia process--sometimes that involves dispute resolution. The only people excluded are those who don't really agree with WP:NPOV, which is the only non-negotiable Wikipedia policy.

As to instances of "attacking" Mormonism in this article, it would be helpful if you raised some specific examples so that we can address them. Much more will get done by focusing on the content of the articles rather than the editors. COGDEN 18:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Anon:207, I don't think anyone is rejecting your comments. You bring up some interesting points to consider. However, you will not accomplish anything if you operate from a position of being offended. There is no way on Wikipedia to ban someone solely for their POV. The concept is that Wikipedia is open to all and it is the value of references that is one of the most significant ways to review edits.

It is true that we all might need to review the article from a position of what is fringe versus what are the most salient facts about Joseph Smith. I have not done that in quite some time and often small, insignificant (but possible sensational) tid-bits stay in the article.

I encourage you to register as an editor, roll up your sleeves, and begin to work. Approach the topic from a neutral position as much as possible and your edits will stick. In closing, Joseph Smith was exactly what he said he was, "a rough stone rolling". He had some wonderful characteristics. In my view, he was a prophet who testified dramatically of Jesus Christ...and he also made some choices that offer a field day for critics. The Church has nothing to fear from history, but we do have a responsibility to present the full story of Joseph Smith.

There are natural conflicts between editors on style. I have worked on Wikipedia since 2004 and COgden longer still, yet we have different ideas about how to write articles. Fox is an excellent word smith, but he can have a very slanted view at times. In reality, we all bring talents to offer. Yours would be aid the cause of improving the article. Cheers, --^StormRider 18:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Just for interest’s sake I reviewed the article on Martin Luther. In less than 200 words I read the following descriptors: Impact, fostered, influenced, modeled, inspired.

Then I returned to this article and read in roughly the same space the following:

Unsuccessful paramilitary campaign… fled a warrant… secretly introduced polygamy… suppressed a local newspaper…

And my favorite (sarcasm intended) is when in the pinnacle of his life’s mission (what many recognize as his martyrdom) we read…” Accused of treason, Smith was jailed by Illinois state authorities and was assassinated by a mob.” Nice touch. Who found that gem? A quote which manages to link his murder by a cowardly mob with his being a traitor in the same sentence. Oh, and forget the use of the word martyred, let’s call it an assassination so that it looks only politically motivated. The problem here is that this article has become so messed up and slanted I don’t know where to even begin.

Please forgive the sarcasm. It is the least offensive way I know of communicating my outrage of the unfair attack this is on the inspiring life of a great man who is also a revered religious leader of millions and millions of people. I'm not asking for a Mormon only article, I'm just asking the same dignity be given Smith as is given to the other religious leaders such as Luther, and Mohammed, and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.. A little humanistic dignity perhaps. A little Christian courtesy? Or is that asking too much? 207.216.63.118 (talk) 04:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy—Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.60.41.15 (talk) 01:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

If you continue on with comparing this article with others, you will find very, very, very few other examples where the topic is treated in such a "neutral" manner. Surprisingly, LDS related topics have a reputation of being completely controlled by Mormons and are very slanted. Frankly, as good as Wikipedia is is many areas, the fact remains that readers cannot assume that articles provide reliable information. Articles are controlled by editors and more often than not, the majority rules. There is no control over the majority and thus the tone of an article can be twisted. Fringe pieces of information become major events, fringe references parade as significant views, etc.

It is asking too much to demand that this topic be treated in the same manner as the others you listed...unless you and many other knowledgeable editors are willing to come in good faith, with excellent references, as well as excellent writing skills and edit the article. Be assured you will be met with an equal number of editors that have an opposing POV. There will be arguments, edit wars, and the POV that wins will be from the group that is willing to devote the most time and effort i.e. countless hours out of every day. They will also need an excellent understanding of Wikipedia policy and how to use the system to achieve their objectives. You will eventually need a mediator and a host of other mediation tools before an article even close to the treatment of Luther, Mohammad, MLK, etc. is achieved. It is now time to choose; will you continue to whine or are you ready to work? I don't mean to offend, but I don't have a lot of time to listen to moaning.

As an aside, no LDS would recognize this as an article about Joseph Smith. What I have always rejected is that the topic cannot first focus on why Joseph Smith was important. This same thing irks you, join the crowd. Cheers, --^StormRider 06:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

All the above characterizations of Smith's life by Canadiandy are just simple factual statements, stated quite neutrally. We can't change the facts of Smith's life. He was an extraordinary man who lived an extraordinary and fascinating life. Any comparison to Martin Luther is not apt. Luther was never a paramilitary or military leader or participated in a war, he never practiced polygamy, flouted social conventions, traveled the countryside as a mystical treasure seer, had himself symbolically coronated as millennial king, went on the lam, suppressed a local newspaper, or was killed while in prison by an angry mob while he was running for President of the United States. Some Mormons might think that these things are "negative", but I disagree, and think these facts make him the most fascinating person in American history. But what I or anyone else thinks about these facts doesn't matter: what matters is what is that these elements of his life are featured prominently in the mainstream literature and therefore will be featured prominently in this article pursuant to WP:NPOV.

It's true, Canadiandy, we can forget about the word "martyred" here, which is not NPOV. What's wrong with "assassinated", and linking that to his arrest? He was indeed killed for largely political reasons, and he was a U.S. Presidential candidate at the time. The Illinoisans thought that Smith was amassing power and had become a law unto himself. We've already discussed the word "assassinated" ad nauseum (I think the main alternative was "lynched", which is problematic for other reasons) and I think the consensus was that "assassinated" was the best way to put it. COGDEN 06:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, COGDEN. Martin Luther's history is just as controversial and unique. His possible antisemitic views, his desire to design a new religion which included nationalist tones, his political posturings, the fact that the NAZI regime drew heavily from his writings. Don't forget the fact that he was a heretic, a religious divider, and excommunicated by his own religion. Now, before you think I am anti-Luther, please find my discussion re: Martin Luther in which I argue that the inclusion of the links between NAZI sympathies and Luther are insensitive and irrelevant. I have great respect for Luther and think he was a noble and brave man (though I do not agree with some of his doctrines). Also, my concern over the use of the word 'assassinated' is in the context that it is stated in the same sentence in which Joseph is referred to as a traitor. In fact, Joseph did every thing he could to respect American law, and was far more often a victim of poor government than an opponent of it. Don't forget, Joseph appeared at Carthage of his own accord and not by force. Not really indicative of a traitor. But then that isn't mentioned either.

You wrote, "Surprisingly, LDS related topics have a reputation of being completely controlled by Mormons and are very slanted." I may agree with you here. If by Mormons you meant those who have bitterly left the Church and now spend their days trying to tear it down. If you think this has a Mormon slant then explain why so many of us, including FAIR, are so offended by it? I would be thrilled to see this page blank rather than leave it stand in its present negative, critical, and inflammatory state. 207.216.63.118 (talk) 03:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

It was Storm Rider who wrote that. Historically, a few Mormon studies articles have acquired that reputation. But I think that reputation is undeserved in general. For the most part, there are a mix of editors editing every Mormon studies article. The editors making the most permanent contributions approach the subjects from a New Mormon History perspective, which includes both apologists and secular editors. Less effective are those with something to prove, either those who want to use Wikipedia as a proselytizing tool, or those like those as you say who "spend their days trying to tear [Mormonism] down." As a practicing Mormon myself, I understand why many Mormon editors are shocked to read these articles. Part of it may be that they aren't used to writing from a secular perspective, as opposed to a religious or apologetic perspective.

As for Luther, I still don't think the comparison is apt. The controversy about Martin Luther is small potatoes compared to Joseph Smith. Sure, Catholics had a beef with him at one time, but they had beefs against a lot of people. And some people read Nazism into Luther's work, but that's really a fringe preoccupation (and an anachronism). Moreover, while the Martin Luther article isn't bad, I wouldn't necessarily hold the article up as the best that Wikipedia has to offer.

Really, what makes Joseph Smith controversial is the fact that the facts of his life continue to shock people (either they are amazed or appalled). These facts haven't changed, and can't change. If an article about his life shocks people, that doesn't necessarily mean the article isn't neutral. It might just mean that he led a shocking life when measured by the standards of 21st Century Americanism. Take any important and widely-discussed fact about his life, such as the fact he practiced polygamy or the fact that he said an angel appeared in his bedroom and directed him to a buried gold book containing writings more authoritative than the Bible, and there will be some people who are awed, and others who are dismayed. That doesn't mean you don't include that fact in the article or that you minimize it to an extent not compatible with the prominence reflected in mainstream academic works. COGDEN 07:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

COgden: Antisemitism is small potatoes? Luther (according to those who obsess about it) talked about burning their houses and taking their property. Even Joseph Smith's most controversial issues (polygamy) were based on free will and threatened no one. What is the problem with the Luther article, I thought it looked pretty fair-minded and informative? I only ask because you suggest it is worse than this one. I beg to differ. The Luther article I read is neutral in tone, and respectful in scope and sequence. 207.216.63.118 (talk) 19:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

His antisemitism isn't small potatoes. That is the one important part of his teachings that is probably shocking to the average reader, but that part is, in fact, prominently covered in the Martin Luther article, as well as the separate Martin Luther and antisemitism, as it should be. I didn't say that the Martin Luther article was worse than this one, just that it isn't the best that Wikipedia has to offer. Neither article is ready for good article status at the moment. Some of the problems with Martin Luther are that it is a jumbled mess, and it has a poor introduction that doesn't summarize the entire article. Though I think the Joseph Smith article has a good introduction now, and a good Early Life section, it has other problems, such as the fact that it is not yet comprehensive, and certain topics about his life go into too much detail.

I think we need to get away from thinking about what part of Smith's or Luther's life is controversial or shocking. The fact that these elements are shocking is irrelevant to WP:NPOV: what's important is the fact that they receive prominent coverage in mainstream publications. That some people find issues shocking is a side-issue, and shouldn't guide our editorial decisions. COGDEN 21:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

No we are not "slanted". Many so-called "sources" are anti-Mormon or simply incorrect. The fact that the Gov. of Illinois ordered Smith's murder and their had been attacks, burning, tar-and-feathering; etc; shows you can't trust what the Mormon-haters wrote. I.E; if they can murder; they can bias news, can't they?68.231.189.108 (talk) 15:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I hear what you are saying, and I tend to agree. I am not worried about the "shocking" issues covered on Joseph Smith. In fact I think once people understand who Joseph is they fall into place in much the way Bushman would have laid out the facts. But in the Luther article these elements are given brief discussion to keep on topic or are placed in side articles. That is what I would like to see. I am not scared of the truth or any of the mud anti-Smithites can sling. What I don't like is that right off the bat the tone of the article paints Smith as a nut with the effect that most readers will simply dismiss him. And the only side that wins in that environment are those who oppose him. 99.199.150.233 (talk) 00:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

I agree with this comment i think this article is ridiculous and far from the facts and i would appreciate it if those who are editing this article would refrain from making this an attack on mormonism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.28.91.40 (talk) 17:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit 'Smith['s] liv[ing] with the majority of his Church members in Kirtland"

I find the sentence, "For most of the 1830s, Smith lived with the majority of his church members in Kirtland, Ohio" semantically concerning. Its juxtaposition might allude to a later betrayal. Also, Joseph never held, nor claimed ownership of The Church of Jesus Christ so the statement 'his' Church is erroneous. Would anyone take issue with the following improvement? "For most of the 1830s, Smith lived in Kirtland, Ohio with the majority of Church members."

207.216.63.118 (talk) 04:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

That is not a controversial edit, but rather improves the text. Go for it; be bold. --^StormRider 04:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I think I've fixed that problem.--John Foxe (talk) 14:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

John, both for facilitating discussion of the change, as well as for this conversation's historical value, can you please copy the change you made into this discussion (or provide a link to the diff)? ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 23:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't like the fix John. Please revert and add the change I recommended. By adding the word, 'but' and linking it to something else you have taken a neutral statement and made it sound loaded. Are you doing this on purpose? I'm not questioning your integrity, 'but' the proposed change was fine before. 207.216.63.118 (talk) 19:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

Here's the sentence: "For most of the 1830s, Smith lived in Kirtland, Ohio, with most of the church members; but he also sent followers to Jackson County, Missouri, in an attempt to establish a city of Zion as the biblical New Jerusalem." What's the problem with the "but"? What's "loaded" about it? Would "and" rather than "but" be OK?--John Foxe (talk) 02:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Finish this sentence, "She's a very kind lady, but..." . You don't need a 'but' there, a full stop (period) would suffice.

207.216.63.118 (talk) 15:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

Fine, have a period.--John Foxe (talk) 16:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks John. Looks better. Canadiandy1 (talk) 03:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy1

Proposed text removal/summary

The polygamy subsection Revealed to others is only tangentially related to J.S., and I feel it should either be removed or summarized per WP:UNDUE. —Eustress ^talk 03:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Eustress 100%. Best, A Sniper (talk) 06:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree the whole Nauvoo era section needs to be cut back and revamped with some new added information, but I don't want to just cut things indiscriminately, and I want to make sure that all the unique content makes it to at least one sub-article. COGDEN 07:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. I will proceed by removing the subsection in question entirely, since it discusses Smith having taught polygamy in the Distinctive views and teachings. I will post the removed text below, in case some feel parts of it should be incorporated into the teachings section or into another article. —Eustress ^talk 18:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure wholesale removal of four large paragraphs was not what COGDEN had in mind. That material has been in the article for months and took a long time to put together. Let the material stay until after we see what your additions below will look like. --John Foxe (talk) 21:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

So what if it took months - so are many edits you, 'Hi' & Duke purged in the last couple of years in an effort to shape the article in a particular fashion. The point is that this is all undue - it should be included in the article focusing on that issue. Best, A Sniper (talk) 21:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. It's not undue, and it needs to stay at least until we see what will take its place.--John Foxe (talk) 21:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The argument is that nothing should take its place--it should be removed completely since the issue is discussed elsewhere and this material barely touches J.S. —Eustress ^talk 22:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that it should be completely removed; the material bears relevance to Smith's life, as is evidenced in phrases like "Bennet shortly became Smith's enemy", "Smith ... forced Bennet's resignation as Nauvoo mayor", and "Smith once again went into hiding". I do, however, agree that it should be summarized into maybe just one paragraph, and that the information should be preserved in some other article, probably Origin of Latter Day Saint polygamy. ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 23:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I could live with a summary paragraph, depending on the wording...Best, A Sniper (talk) 03:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to add my agreement to the above that Bennett is a key figure during the Nauvoo era. He was the church's co-president, and we need even more info about Smith's relationship with Bennett. COGDEN 05:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Text proposed for removal

Revealed to others

Although Smith's teachings about plural marriage were expressed in strict confidentiality and only to his leadership, the more men and women who participated, the more likely it became that these secret marriages would be revealed to the Nauvoo community and, of course, to the larger world. By May 16, 1842, the New York Herald reported the rumor that "promiscuous intercourse" was being practiced in Nauvoo. Yet Smith might have been able to talk down these reports along with other salacious gossip had it not been for his erstwhile second-in-command, John Cook Bennett. Smith was not always a good judge of men, and Bennett shortly became Smith's nemesis, although Smith had first predicted that Bennett was "calculated to be a great blessing to our community."

After deserting a wife and three children and arriving in Nauvoo in 1841, Bennett had been baptized into the new religion. Emma never trusted him, but Joseph welcomed his assistance in acquiring the Nauvoo city charter. Soon Bennett became the first mayor of Nauvoo, “assistant president,” and Major General of the Nauvoo Legion. The latter Bennett threatened to use in challenging Missouri for restitution of the Saints’ lost property, suggesting to skittish gentiles that Mormons intended to use force of arms to accomplish their objectives. Unfortunately for Smith, Bennett also had an eye for women and made use of Smith’s new revelation to seduce the unwary, telling them that illicit sex was acceptable among the Saints so long as it was kept secret. And Bennett ignored even perfunctory wedding ceremonies.

Smith was incensed at Bennett’s activities and forced Bennett’s resignation as Nauvoo mayor. In retaliation, Bennett remained in the area and wrote “lurid exposés of life in Nauvoo” that were first published in various newspapers and, later that year, compiled into a book. Even contemporaries could hardly escape the conclusion that Bennett was, as Fawn Brodie has called him, “a base and ignoble opportunist.” But the Ostlings note that “there was just enough of a kernel of truth to arouse internal suspicion and whip up anti-Mormon sentiment elsewhere.” Non-Mormons looked with increasing uneasiness not only at reports of Mormon “free wifery” but at the comparative success of Nauvoo, the competent drilling of the Nauvoo Legion, and the growing political clout of the Saints.

Furthermore, on May 6, 1842, an unknown assailant shot former governor of Missouri Lilburn Boggs three times in the head. Bennett named a rough Mormon loyalist, Porter Rockwell, as the gunman. Mormons assumed Boggs would die and considered his assassination a fulfillment of prophecy. The Nauvoo Wasp indiscreetly gloated that the person who “did the noble deed remains to be found out." Boggs refused to die, however, and when he recovered, he pressed Illinois governor Thomas Carlin to extradite Smith to Missouri. Smith once again went into hiding for some months until the U. S. Circuit Court in Springfield finally ruled that the extradition order was unconstitutional.

Thank you everyone for your feedback. Below is a crack at a one-paragraph summary. I believe it captures all necessary detail pertinent to Smith without going into unnecessary detail (per WP:UNDUE/WP:NPOV). Regarding finding a home for the removed, extant text, a lot of the text seems to address John Bennett, so it could go there—but wherever it goes, it needs to be drastically revised in order to assuage POV and WP:WEASEL issues.

My suggestion is that the Plural Marriage section have no subsections and that the paragraph below be integrated into what is currently subsection Revealed to Smith. —Eustress ^talk 02:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

One paragraph summary

Smith's practice of taking multiple wives also made an enemy of John Cook Bennett, the first mayor of Nauvoo and, according to one source, the church's second-in-command. Bennett interpreted Smith's revelation on polygamy to mean that illicit sex was acceptable among the Saints so long as it was kept secret, going so far as to ignore perfunctory wedding ceremonies. Smith consequently forced Bennett’s resignation as Nauvoo mayor, while Bennett remained in the area, writing critical commentaries on life in Nauvoo and ultimately driving Smith into hiding due to events surrounding an attack on former Missouri governor Lilburn Boggs.

This summary deletes and distorts much of value in the paragraphs that you dislike: the early rumors of Mormon polygamy in the East, Smith's poor judgment of subordinates, Bennett's control of the Legion and the saber-rattling that contributed to gentile nervousness. The mention of the assassination attempt on Lilburn Boggs does not suggest that Smith might have been involved. In the last sentence you introduce a court from nowhere.

Smith's practice of taking multiple wives didn't make an enemy of Bennett; it made him an ally. It was Bennett's practice of taking multiple wives that made Smith an enemy. There's no reason to indicate that Bennett interpreted Smith's revelation incorrectly; he was just a scoundrel. You've used the word "critical" in a non-neutral way; "lurid exposés" is certainly closer to the mark. The penultimate sentence—besides being weakly written—seems to connect Bennett with the attempt on Boggs.--John Foxe (talk) 15:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

John, several editors above agree that this section can reasonably be cut down to one paragraph. Please help to refine my attempt above rather than simply criticizing it. —Eustress ^talk 19:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I have just copied all the Nauvoo material in this article into the sub-articles Life of Joseph Smith, Jr. from 1838 to 1842 and Life of Joseph Smith, Jr. from 1842 to 1844 to make sure we don't lose any content. My suggestion for moving forward is to gradually work in the article itself rather than trying to replace everything with something worked out on the talk page. We should do it a sentence at a time, looking for anything that can be streamlined or condensed. If something is a minor point or a side-issue, we might be able to delete it and leave it to the sub-articles, or at least move it to the footnotes. However, the decision whether to cut something ought to be carefully weighed and in some cases discussed on the talk page. Also, anything that needs to be added should be added both here and in the sub-articles. Also, I think we should try to gradually move the text in the direction of being a more linear, narrative structure as much as possible. COGDEN 20:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. If we work through the paragraphs phrase by phrase, those in favor of revision can explain why they believe each change is necessary. COGDEN and I have had differences of opinion in the past about article length, with me (usually unsuccessfully) advocating cuts. But cuts that appear intended to advance a POV are another matter.--John Foxe (talk) 20:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Eschatology and Cosmology (The Second Coming, Man's Pre-Existence, and Degrees of Glory)

Okay, I did some research into what these big words really mean. Eschatology was new (I'm an embarrassed English minor), and I would have associated cosmology with mysticism and astrology). While somewhat appropriate, I am sure the term 'eschatology' was not commonly used by Joseph, nor would he have likely termed his teachings on the pre-earth, mortal, and post-earth life as a cosmology. What I suggest may actually be more inflammatory, but at least it seems to improve the clarity of the sections topics. In place of the heading, "Eschatology and Cosmology" I propose the slightly longer yet much more easily understood heading, "The Second Coming, Pre-Existence, and Degrees of Glory". 207.216.63.118 (talk) 04:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

The subjects of eschatology and cosmology are more extensive than the Second Coming, Pre-existence, and degrees of glory. Cosmology also includes Smith's teachings in the King Follett Discourse relating to becoming gods, the teaching that god was a man, multiplicity of gods, Smith's interest in astronomy, etc. Eschatology includes Smith's teachings on theodemocracy and the millennial kingdom, the establishment of Zion, etc., much of which he believed would occur prior to the second coming. It also includes all the stuff long after the second coming, like the events during and after the Millennium. COGDEN 05:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I replaced delightful "glasses" picture with the stained glass

Pictures discussed in this conversation:

• 
  "stained glass"
• 
  "glasses"
• 
  "translation"

This was a conversation last week and I have been thinking about it since. John felt that because the stained glass image represented Smith's rendition of the first vision from 1838, it should not belong at the front of the article. The front of the article had not only this wonderful picture of a pair of glasses, which is certainly not the universal description of the Urim and Thummim, which also clashes with Joseph Smith's own words of what they are...thus I feel is not a representative picture of the translation process. We also have the artful hand-drawing of Smith looking in a hat (again, not the universal or only method of translation). My position is why should we have two discordant pictures at the beginning? LDS don't recognize either of them nor do any other sect of Mormonism. It has always felt like we were "leading" readers to a conclusion through those images. So, after several days, I chose to move the stained glass to the beginning, deleted the dreadful glasses picture, and kept the hand drawing of the man in the hat. I think it is a fair compromise. Thoughts?--^StormRider 22:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

You have my vote. The glasses picture is truly dreadful. The stained glass First Vision near the beginning doesn't bother me either so long as the caption makes it clear that the story dates from much later in Joseph's career. (It would be nice to point out that despite what Joseph said, the artist just couldn't bring himself to make the figures identical, but I'll pass on that.)--John Foxe (talk) 22:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. As for the angel Moroni image, if we have any image at all in the Joseph Smith article, it ought to be of Joseph Smith receiving the golden plates from Moroni. That's the thing that got him famous, it's what fueled the growth of the church during his lifetime, it is the thing about Smith's life that has evoked the most academic writing, and most mainstream scholars recognize it as the pivotal event that represented the beginning of Mormonism as a movement. If anyone has a problem with how the Urim and Thummim are depicted, that's legitimate, but not IMHO a reason for deleting the image. It is consistent with Smith's description (he didn't say the stones weren't like lenses), and it's consistent with the descriptions of Martin Harris', William Smith, and I think Lucy Mack Smith, but if anyone can find a similar public domain picture that depicts them differently, please present it and we'll take a look. I don't see a problem with the 1893 engraving. It was engraved by a Mormon, and endorsed by an LDS general authority, so it's not like this is an anti-Mormon depiction. Showing the angel Moroni is much more important than showing the first vision. Smith's early history was far more about Moroni's visits than it was about his first vision, which he never really understood in his own mind, and didn't even mention, until the 1830s.

As for the image showing him translating, this is the academic consensus (minus a few remaining apologist holdouts) of how Smith generally translated, and in fact the only way Smith was ever observed translating. I don't see the problem. COGDEN 23:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Accuracy aside, the glasses picture was ugly. The stained glass is pretty. Not fantastic, imho, but pretty nonetheless. I understand that the picture of Joseph translating is courtesy of an acquaintance of John Foxe, and I hope that person doesn't take offense that I feel the image is rather uninteresting, and not much better than the glasses one. But it's the best we've got for depicting the translation process, so I suppose we'll stick with it. ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 06:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Why do we care so much whether or not it is ugly? The 1893 engraving is informative and content rich, and best of all, it's copyright-free. This is an encyclopedia, not an art gallery. I'd love it if someone would draw something that's prettier, but still has the same amount of information content as the 1893 engraving. I've looked long and hard for a more suitable image, but I haven't found anything out there in the public domain that tells the angel Moroni story like this one does. Same with the image of Smith translating. There doesn't happen to be a good copyright-free image of Smith translating, historically-accurate or otherwise. Our goal is to illustrate, not to aesthetize. COGDEN 07:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Of all the pictures I don't like the one at the top is way up there. It seems to make Joseph look effeminate and weak. From personal discussion with artist DeeJay Bawden he explained the problem with the depiction. It is based on the death mask which is supposed to make it more true to life. The problem, as he explained it, is that a death mask only casts the front oval of the face. Bawden, who is also a highly respected sculptor, goes on to explain that an important element in drawing faces (as he learned from his sculpting training) is taking into consideration the bone (don't remember the name of it) which would be best described as the back cheek bone (think the bone that leads from the cheek bone to the ear). Based on physical descriptions from his research and a sculptor's attention to 3D physiology, Bawden's paintings are far more realistic (see http://iconmonuments.com/Joseph%20Smith%20Bronze%20Bust%20Statue.htm ) and are still based on the death mask. The present picture does not reflect the following description given by a A reporter from a St. Louis newspaper: “The shape of his head is a very oblong oval. … His forehead is white, without a furrow, and notwithstanding the small facial angle, somewhat symmetrical. His hair is quite light and fine—complexion pale—cheeks full—temperament evidently sanguine—lips thin rather than thick. …

“But the Prophet’s most remarkable feature is his eye. … The hue is light hazel, and is shaded, and, at times, almost veiled, by the longest, thickest light lashes you ever saw belonging to a man. “His voice is low and soft, and his smile, which is frequent, is agreeable.” (Joseph Smith: An American Prophet, 178–9)

207.216.63.118 (talk) 01:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy1

You're talking about the Joseph Smith III portrait? That was only one of two known paintings of Joseph Smith taken from a live sitting. Moreover, Smith's family said it was the best likeness. If DeeJay Bawden wants to donate some of his intellectual property to Wikipedia, we could consider it. However, its hard to say how it would be appropriate to replace a live portrait with artwork designed to make Smith more "masculine". COGDEN 05:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Whether we use Bawden's work in this article or not, if you are in personal contact with him, then please encourage him to release some of his work under a Wikipedia-compatible Creative Commons license, such as the CC-BY-SA. Otherwise, his work should be considered non-free content. ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 15:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

First, as I understand it Mr. Bawden did not try to make Joseph look merely more 'masculine.' He tried to more accurately reflect the prophet as a person might encounter him (i.e. true to life and character). One of the problems with the older portraits is the artistic context of the day when a more Romantic attitude was applied to art and portraiture. Thus his image is more purposefully handled to make him look elegant, regal, and graceful. Realism was not its intent. In my observance of Bawden's images Joseph Smith simply looks more realistic as a person. What Bawden's work accomplishes is an effective combination of sculptural sensitivity, modern artistic realism, combined with the accessibility of the death mask. Even the original live portraitist (is that a word) would likely have wanted to apply the techniques and technologies Bawden has access to if he had had the opportunity.

Second, I have emailed Mr. Bawden requesting Free Use of his images. I will let you know when I hear back. In the mean time, I encourage you to check Bawden's online gallery and compare his images with others based on the death mask. While you will likely see his strict conformity to the mask, you will also see Smith's facial structure seem more dimensioned and humanistic than those previous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiandy1 (talk • contribs) 09:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I've returned the dreadful "glasses" picture to the text. Hopefully someone will come up with something better. But COGDEN is right that Moroni and the gold plates have priority over the First Vision. (I thought the latter might work if the caption were allowed to say that the story came late in Joseph's career, but clearly the temptation to change it to reflect official history is too great).--John Foxe (talk) 16:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Explaining the timing of the recording of the First Vision belongs in the body, not in the picture caption. WP:CAP encourages succinct captions with detail in the body. The following is accurate and sufficient: "Smith reported that, in 1820, he was visited by God the Father and Jesus Christ." Let's let the facts speak for themselves. —Eustress ^talk 19:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I would have preferred you waited for consensus, but I won't change it until an agreement is achieved. I don't see the logic of COgden, i.e. that there is someone out there who has prioritized what is more important and Moroni won. Could you prove that or is this really just a matter of personal preference? --^StormRider 18:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, and I don't understand how the purported visit of God can be trumped by the purported visit of an angel? Just because one was recorded on paper before the other? Let's at least compromise and allow both pictures in the opening section (where there is plenty of space!). —Eustress ^talk 19:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Although I'd prefer the First Vision illustration accompany the theological discussion where it logically belongs, I have no problem with it being at the beginning of the article so long as the caption makes it clear that Smith's description of this event came long after the founding of the Church. Here's one case where the preference for short captions should be ignored. Putting the First Vision illustration at the head of the article without a caveat endorses the official (but misleading) LDS version of Mormon history.

COGDEN has a good point that it was Moroni and the gold plates that first brought Joseph to public attention. Since Storm raised this question, I've been wondering why I can't recall modern illustrations of Moroni and Joseph together with the plates and the interpreters. There are LDS illustrations of Moroni appearing to Joseph in bed, there are LDS illustrations of Joseph translating the gold plates, but I can't recall any modern illustrations of Moroni and Joseph with the plates and the interpreters. In any case, the caption for our ugly "glasses" illustration might be profitably expanded as well, perhaps to explain (probably in a footnote) that emphases within the Church were different during the late nineteenth century--John Foxe (talk) 19:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the point is that while captions should be succinct, it's even more important that they are accurate and neutral. You can use the mere placement of an image to make a point, such as the perspective that circa 1820, Smith was claiming that he had seen God and Jesus in bodily form. He did make (or at least imply) that, but it was much later. Up until the mid-1830s, Smith saw his vision mainly as a personal forgiveness of sins. He didn't emphasize the identity of who he saw. It was "the Lord" or "angels". The iconic image of God and Jesus appearing to Smith in bodily form didn't develop until much later. By the way, technically, it's not true that Smith said he saw God and Jesus in the First Vision. He clearly implied that (because who else is going to say "this is my beloved son"?), but he didn't actually say it. That's why, for example, there was room for some 1900s Mormons to think that one of the two personages was Adam. COGDEN 23:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

And I suppose those people think it was Adam who spoke essentially the same words from heaven at Jesus' baptism?! —Eustress ^talk 22:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

In a word, yes. See Adam–God theory.--John Foxe (talk) 22:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I still am not interested in seeing two pictures, the glasses and hat trick, at the beginning of the article. Latter Day Saints can easily say these are POV, but they are still there. You have implied that there is a recognized priority "out there", but I have seen nothing to prove that point. What it seems is that you have a personal preference for both pictures. I and others happen to disagree. Are you saying that these two are so vital to you that you can't live without their presence in the article or not? I assume we could probably just vote on it (while recognizing that voting is evil) or we could compromise. I felt I had compromised by keeping the hat trick in and bringing the glass picture up. I would say that I have a distinct preference for beauty and that I don't have a hang up about chronology. I am open to having other pictures brought in, but please just make them artful.--^StormRider 23:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

If we can find a more artful image of Moroni giving (or at least showing) the plates and other artifacts to Smith, then I'm game. But I've been looking for such a copyright-free image for a long time and haven't found one. This one came from an old book written by an LDS general authority. As to the image showing how Smith translated, I think that's crucial because it adds a lot to the quality of the article, and it is a very straightforward, neutral representation of the translation process. COGDEN 00:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Joseph Smith's wives-a controversy between John Foxe and A Sniper

The following short sentence (and long footnote citation) has been part of this article for months. A Sniper has now removed it. What say the other editors: should it be returned? And if so, should it be returned to its original position in the caption under Emma Smith's picture or simply placed in the text?--John Foxe (talk) 18:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Joseph Smith married at least twenty-eight women.REFERENCE Bushman, 493; Compton, 4-7; Remini, 153-54; Brodie, "The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith," Appendix C in No Man Knows My History, 2nd ed. (New York: Knopf, 1971), 457-88. Remini, 153. Brodie guessed that there might have been as many as 48 plural wives, but succeeding scholars have considered her numbers exaggerated. Remini said that the true number might have been as high as eighty-four, although many of these might have been "simply sacred sealings for eternity." Remini, 153. Smith's biography in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 3: 1337, says that Smith took at least twenty-eight plural wives.

John, with respect, it has been a part of the article because you placed it there. I made the very same argument at the time, and you disregarded it and continued to place it back. In an effort to avoid 3RR, and facing a barrage from your compatriots (Duke and Hi, I believe), I backed down. My original issue was this: This is a photo box and info needs to be limited to the main point. Whether or not Emma Smith's statements conflict with reality, this is what the public record reflects were her sentiments. What is in the box without the Smith polygamy reference is still true. However, it could be interpreted cynically that if an editor really has the agenda of jamming the Joseph Smith polygamy issue into a photo box of Emma Smith, they would foist that reference into there regardless - but this seems like a partisan, POV way of editing (to be so adamant that the reference be in a photo box of Emma Smith). My point is that the info is already adequately peppered throughout the article, and that isn't being challenged. You can trumpet out as many solid references re: Smith's polygamy as you want, but you cannot negate Emma Smith's own statements, and the photo box should stand as it is because it is bona fide. Best, A Sniper (talk) 19:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Why should Emma's denial be accorded any special weight especially in face of overwhelming scholarly consensus to the contrary? Would it be OK to reintroduce the material so long as it wasn't in the photo caption?--John Foxe (talk) 19:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you can place the removed references into the article. Best, A Sniper (talk) 03:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Emma's denial is simply contained within the photo box, and whether or not that constitutes undue weight isn't the issue. There is no scholarly consensus that Emma Smith said anything to the contrary. However, this edit is all about the photo caption, not whether or not the reference(s) should or should not be contained within the article. A Sniper (talk) 01:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think either the denial or the above sentence belong in the caption. Her denial itself isn't really about Joseph Smith, and is more about her own dishonesty or (perhaps more likely) self-deception after Joseph died. Moreover, the statement in the caption is not strictly true. Her denial while Smith was alive was only a public denial, while internally within the church she acknowledged and was a reluctant party to the practice. It would be better to make the caption about Joseph Smith. For example:

"Smith dictated his 1843 revelation on polygamy to convince his reluctant first wife Emma Hale Smith, above, that the practice had been authorized by God."

COGDEN 01:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I say leave it out. The fact Joseph Smith may have had other wives has already received ample attention in the article and has opened up the flood gates of speculation (some say none, some 28 or more, some 84, leave it to Brodie to come up with that one, eh). Until we have better evidence and can address it with a better appreciation of historical contextualism I say simplify this section and leave this one out. 99.199.150.233 (talk) 01:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.216.63.118 (talk) 04:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. (Brodie guessed 48; it was Remini who chose 84. I don't know of any scholar, Mormon or non-Mormon, who today argues for none.)--John Foxe (talk) 14:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The only groups that reject the plural marriages of Smith belong to splinter groups from the Community of Christ. It is not a historical deduction, but a statement of faith. --^StormRider 17:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't disagree with that, Storm Rider. However, what is in the photo box is still historical fact: this is what the public record reflects that Emma Smith stated on many occasions, regardless of whether it was true, self-delusion, wishful thinking, or bold lies. Best, A Sniper (talk) 23:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Emma did not always deny polygamy in private prior to Joseph's death, so I don't think the caption is quite accurate. COGDEN 03:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I've now connected Emma's denial to Joseph's. That makes sense since this article is about him.--John Foxe (talk) 02:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Connection already there, John. Joseph is mentioned in the photo box, along with Emma's well publicized and documented denials. Best, A Sniper (talk) 03:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Joseph Smith, Jr. Never married "women already married". This is a rumor spread by the Expositor and others. Also, references to "polyandry" and "polygyny" are inaccurate.68.231.189.108 (talk) 15:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

You might want to look up the definition of polygyny; it is the more accurate term rather than polygamy. In addition, Joseph Smith was sealed to women that were already married. I am not aware that these sealings/marriages were ever consummated, but the sealings did occur. You might want to read some of the books that focus on the topic. I reverted your edits because they were inaccurate. --^StormRider 15:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

As COGDEN wrote above, Emma didn't deny polygamy in private prior to Joseph's death, so the caption as it now stands is more accurate and better connects her denials to Joseph's.--John Foxe (talk) 16:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Sniper, it's not possible to any longer defend the reputation of Emma against the overwhelming testimony of both historians and the historical actors. If you want to drop the statement in the caption, that's fine; but if there's to be a caption, it needs to mention that Emma's denials were only public ones. I realize you have more than academic interest in this matter, and I'm truly sorry about that because it makes compromise harder, but the caption as it stands is deceptive. (I'll give you some time.)--John Foxe (talk) 22:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

After giving this problem some additional thought, I believe a sensible compromise is to say simply that Emma Smith was Joseph Smith's wife. I hope you agree.--John Foxe (talk) 23:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I had the same idea, to simply say that Emma was Joseph's wife. The rest of the information is in the body of the text; it seems like a reasonable compromise to me. ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 01:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Good plan. And what about also moving her image to the "family and descendants" section? She was Smith's wife in all time periods, not just Nauvoo. If we need a polygamy-related image, I'm sure we could find something better for that purpose. We can also use other types of Nauvoo-related images. COGDEN 01:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

SOLUTION: I have returned the text in the Emma Smith photobox to a recent suggestion of Foxe - and have returned it to the polygamy section where it has always been, since the caption is related specifically to it, as it always was. Hope this will end the 'controversy'. Best, A Sniper (talk) 16:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Tedious ??

Sniper, I don't know who you think you're talking to or who you think made that last edit to the caption for Emma Smith's picture, but what I wrote is factual and better describes exactly what she was: one of Smith's wives. Duke53 | ^Talk 07:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I was writing directly to John. He changed what was there. You just added your two cents. What was there previous to John's edit was already true. And, by the way: in all the states where Smith lived, the law of the land was explicit: monogamy. That would mean that, no matter whether Smith had 100 women married to him in clandestine ceremonies, United States law recognized that he had only one wife. I mean if you want to get technical - and I know of no court case where he was deemed to be a bigamist ;) A Sniper (talk) 08:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Aah, now I get it: you address Mr. Foxe when you revert my edits ... makes all the sense in the world! * (cough, cough) * Duke53 | ^Talk 08:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Uh, whether you get it or not doesn't particularly matter to me. A Sniper (talk) 08:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

But your whining about article ' ownership ' while attempting to do that very same thing matters to me and many other editors. Either be civil to other editors in your comments here (and your edit summaries) or stop editing WP ... your sarcasm and snide remarks do matter and are not going to be tolerated or overlooked any longer. Do you get that ? Duke53 | ^Talk 10:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz A Sniper (talk) 15:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Alas, the paragon of neutrality shows up. Now all the flowers will bloom and "neutrality" will be restored. Oh joy.--^StormRider 12:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

And, right on cue, the least talented member of 'F Troop' chimes in again. Duke53 | ^Talk 15:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It is funny how you think bolding words or phrases has meaning; as if what you think has greater value. Please understand that for the rest of Wikipedia the value of an editor is what they are actually able to add to the conversation and not how they edit the font they use. Sadly, edits of value is an area where you have always lagged far behind all others. But, you are a source of a short guffaw. So please, go on and be our...laughing stock. Cheers. --^StormRider 15:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

If for one second you believe that I care a whit for what a gang of 'tbm' disciples repeatedly spout here at WP then you are even simpler than I imagined; as far as 'guffaws' go, look in the mirror ... your lds church is more often the subject of ridicule here, by many WP editors. TASSOMYA. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 17:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

HA HA. ;) A Sniper (talk) 15:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

My feelings about this thread (and many similar interactions on Wikipedia) can be summed up here. Back to the content question, I like the wording that Emma was Joseph's wife, simply because it is true and neither excludes the possibility that Joseph had other wives nor contravenes the point of view that he did not. Since the article text discusses the matter, there's no good reason to inject extra controversy into the caption of an illustration. alanyst ^/talk/ 16:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Those with the agenda to drive the article into a particular 'slant' are always pushing the envelope to include as controversial a reference quote as possible. The whole point of the Emma photobox was always to point out the guy's wife's public and documented statements, whether or not they run contrary to facts, innuendo, gossip or whatever. THAT's controversial? Best, A Sniper (talk) 16:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Nothing 'controversial' about describing Emma Smith as being 'one of Joseph Smith's wives', as she was, quite simply, one of Joseph Smith's wives. It was Smith's decision to enter into plural marriages, thereby earning this label for her. Live with it. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 17:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm addressing Sniper's argument above, which I understand to read that because polygamy was illegal, Smith only had one "wife" recognized by the law. I think that's pretty hyper-technical. Just because one or more marriage ceremonies are not legal doesn't mean you can't properly refer to the partner as a "wife". In fact, the 1833 Illinois Bigamy law reads as follows: "Bigamy consists in the having of two wives or two husbands at one and the same time, knowing that the former husband or wife is still alive." I think that how we refer to Smith's "marriage co-participants" should be governed by the terminology used by mainstream academics in the field, and they all use the term "wives". COGDEN 19:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not opposed to describing individuals by what they are or were. However, I also think there is a time and place for all things. Emma is a person who stands on her own and thus I support a simple, clear statement that her name was Emma Hale Smith. When we add further explanation, I would ask what is the purpose of the addition? In doing so, objectives become clear and slanted tone and POV is removed.

Any article can be turned from an informative piece to a POV tirade, both positive and negative. I tend to reject the type of screed that pours forth from anti-Mormon tracts. Again, we already discuss the polygny in the article, which is definitely appropriate. However, we do not need to interpret everything through this single lens. --^StormRider 00:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

In addition, I don't think the statement that she always denied polygamy is helpful or accurate. There are several accounts of her acceptance, however difficult or short-lived. At times she appears to have accepted polygamy or at least tolerated. But, she could never accept it permanetly. What is the purpose of this language? Are we trying to lead readers to think polygamy/polygny never occured or something else. Keep captions simple and leave off the "guidance". --^StormRider 00:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree we don't need to go into her precise position on plural marriage. That can be left to the text of the article (briefly) and her own article in more detail. We do of course need something in the caption that ties her with Joseph Smith, and makes it clear why we are including the image in the article. But all we really need, in my view, is to say that she was his first wife, or the first of his several wives.COGDEN 01:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

While I'd personally prefer the simple statement that Emma Hale Smith was Joseph Smith's wife, it's courteous to give Sniper some slack here. We all agree that Emma Smith denied Joseph's polygamy, and that affirmation is important to him. Adding the words "publicly" and "like her husband" is enough of a warning label for any reasonable reader. When Congress passed NAGPRA, which mandated that government agencies return Native American remains to something approximating their home tribe, I asked an NPS superintendent if he had any problem with that. "No," he said, "those bones don't mean anything to me, and it's an opportunity to give back something that's emotional to somebody."--John Foxe (talk) 02:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Routerone blocked for sockpuppetry

I've blocked him for a week for sockpuppetry. He even gave his IP sock a 3RR warning, with all the GF in the world it's hard to believe that was not to avoid suspicion. He has denied it in his unblock request but it is CU confirmed. Dougweller (talk) 06:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

What has this got to do with the article? You seemed to have posted the news everywhere as if it is some kind of celebration and that it automatically makes my views against the state of this and other LDS related articles less valid (when it doesn't), how tedious. Routerone (talk) 14:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Kirtland: church population increase

The article now says that the addition of the Kirtland converts in late 1830 "nearly doubled" the church population, citing Vogel. Unfortunately, I don't have access to Vogel. Brodie says the church "more than" doubled its members (p. 99). She said that prior to the Kirtland conversions, there were about 60 members, and that 150 were added to that number in Kirtland, but she doesn't give a primary source citation. Does Vogel have better information than Brodie did? I didn't find anything in Bushman on this. DHC, by the way, says that there were over 100 converts, which would support the contention that the church "more than" doubled. COGDEN 20:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I've returned the "more than doubled" language citing Vogel's source, a Dialogue article from 1970. Maybe Vogel was just being conservative with "nearly doubled," perhaps being wary of Pratt's head counts.--John Foxe (talk) 21:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I was thinking this was Vogel's biography and maybe there was some new research. I did a little further looking starting here, and it seems that Brodie's ~60 figure for late 1830 was probably taken from the minutes of the September 30, 1830 general conference, which counted 62 members. That number seems pretty solid, although there could have been some New York converts after September 1830. The precise number converted in Ohio seems a little more uncertain, and was probably a moving target. A couple of sources say 100+ (DHC and an article in the Buffalo Journal & General Advertiser dated Dec. 8, 1830). Lyman Wight's journal says 130 new Ohio members. The Painesville Telegraph (Nov. 30, 1830) says 100. Parley P. Pratt said 127. Life among the Mormons said "about one hundred persons". I still don't know where Brodie got the 150 figure (maybe she was counting a few new baptisms in late 1830 or early 1831 not included in other tallies), but I think it's safe to say that the church membership at least doubled. Probably closer to tripled. COGDEN 22:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Using references properly

I reverted COgden's recent edits today because I think they twist Bushman's comments. For example, the edit in question is about Smith's journey to Salem, Massachusetts. Bushman states first that "The purpose of the journey goes unstated, but in Salem, a revelation assured them, 'I have much treasure in this city for you, for the benefit of Zion; and many people in this city whom I will gather out in due time for the benefit of Zion'". He then states, "Long after the event,...peruaded Church leaders a large sum of money was hidden..." "PERHAPS" Joseph thought could find this treasure. Perhaps is a qualifier that is competely missed in COgden's edit. He moved if from PERHAPS to a reality or as a specific reason for the venture. This is not what Bushman has stated and it misrepresents the edit. --^StormRider 22:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you are looking at an old version of my edits. My most recent version included the word "perhaps". Therefore, I'm undoing the reversion. I think the existing text addresses your concern. COGDEN 23:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

"His legacy includes"

Just a minor point, but should this point in the lead really go into detail about the churches he created? it currently says:

• "His legacy includes several religious denominations, including the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Community of Christ, which collectively claim a growing membership of nearly 14 million worldwide".

I am not sure it is necessary to include a mention for both the LDS church and the community of christ. Because a) one is seemingly more noteworthy on a global scale than the other and b) he is more known on an academic scale by creating the Latter Day Saint movement as a whole, rather than being focused on these two individual churches. Although I will agree that he is on the other hand, more widely known for the church of jesus christ of latter day saints. So what move should be took here?

• Mention his establishment of the movement overall.

• Mention the movement and its largest church in the movement.

• Keep it as it is, as one user stated in the summary "can't have one without the other".

Just curious, I am interested in discussing a few more changes to the lead aswell, which I think is too excessive in length.Routerone (talk) 20:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

We attempt to be respectful of all groups. It is seen as arrogant to assume that given the LDS Church is so significantly larger than the Community of Christ to only focus on the LDS Church. Members of the smaller groups, not just CC, appreciate being acknowledged. The question becomes is the quality of the article improved by mentioning all of the groups? Is two enough? Or is just one?

I disagree completely with any need that is one is mentioned the other is required. However, I prefer to mention the larger groups and feel no need to mention every single group that splintered from Smith's first church. For me it is a matter of context. Sometimes several and other times not. Sometimes LDS movement is enough. I don't think there are any "rules" that must be followed. --^StormRider 21:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't being arrogant, this is why I brought it up in discussion. Routerone (talk) 22:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

In the intro, I think we can just leave out the names of both churches, leaving it to the "Legacy" section to go into more detail. COGDEN 23:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the need to be sensitive to the claims of the Community of Christ, but the history suggests that the large majority of the members and its leadership followed President Young which places the Community of Christ in the position of either an off-break or small 'p' protestant group. So it seems quite relevant to suggest that Joseph Smith had nothing to do with the Community of Christ (I don't believe anyone has presented evidence that Joseph ever even used the term, "Community of Christ." Clearly the LDS have a more legitimate claim to religious succession based on the authorities bestowed by Joseph Smith to the Quorum of the Twelve. Joseph Smith revealed the structure and authority of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints which was officially and legally maintained to present day. The Community of Christ may legitimately argue they have based their beliefs on his teachings, but to include them as equal members in Smith's legacy is like identifying the Anglican Church as part of the Catholic legacy.

I propose the article read,

""His legacy includes present-day The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints which reports a membership of 13,508,509 worldwide as of December 31, 2008. (Ensign Magazine, May 2009 Volume 39, Number 05). The Community of Christ which identifies Joseph Smith as its first prophet reports a worldwide membership [of] approximately 250,000 people in more than 50 nations. (http://www.cofchrist.org/news/GeneralInfo.asp#membership. Retrieved January 26, 2010). Canadiandy1 (talk) 03:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

How about not? Your claims above are pure POV. The CoC is an offshoot? The CoC doesn't have the right to claim equally in Smith's legacy? That is the kind of POV stuff we've tried hard to avoid here, stressing NPOV edits. I could wax on about the Temple Lot or Kirtland Temple cases, or that Joseph Smith's family were firmly within the RLDS/CoC tradition, but I won't. Please leave your POV at the door. I would certainly not try and suggest that the LDS church is an offshoot, simply because they left Zion to move several states west. A Sniper (talk) 06:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not question that the CoC's existence stems from Joseph Smith's legacy, but I have seen little reliable evidence to suggest Joseph was the founder of the CoC. Clearly in a Church which relied on the practice of common consent the majority of members selected Young as President, leaving the group later known as the CoC as an offshoot in much the same way historians would argue the Greek Orthodox church was an off-shoot of Catholicism. Off-shoot is not a disrespectful term, and seems much more accurate than suggesting both churches have truly equal claim to apostolic succession. Canadiandy1 (talk) 16:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

Canadiandy1, I would suggest taking a look at the succession crisis article and Quinn's 1976 article in BYU Studies to better understand the Community of Christ's perspective on the succession of Joseph Smith. It wasn't as cut and dry as most Mormons are taught. COGDEN 07:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Canadiandy, we discussed that particular sentence quite profusely in the not-so-distant past, and what we have now represents the carefully deliberated result of prior consensus (read: I had a heavy hand in the current wording). The introductory paragraphs of an article should, in my opinion, link to major topics that are closely related. The LDS Church and CoC are obvious candidates, while the other Latter Day Saint religions are significantly smaller than the CoC.

As for your reasoning, Canadiandy, as others have pointed out, it is flawed. Joseph's wife, Emma, went with the CoC, and much of the property tied to the Smiths (the Kirtland Temple, the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible, etc) went to the CoC. This, if nothing else (and there is plenty else), makes the CoC relevant to Smith's "legacy". ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 08:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Anonymous defense of Strang

An anonymous defender of James Strang has repeatedly changed a sentence about a forged letter, reputedly written by Smith, commissioning Strang to lead the Church. The only evidence cited by the anonymous editor is to the Strangite website. Here's what Bushman, following Van Noord, says: "James J. Strang, who was baptized only in February 1844, claimed that Joseph had written a letter commissioning him to lead the Church. Although the letter proved to be counterfeit, Strang leveraged his slight claim to authority by recording new revelations, using a seerstone, and saying an angel ordained him in direct imitation of Joseph." (RSR, 555.)--John Foxe (talk) 15:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The above it begging the question. Saying it is a a forged letter no way proves this claim. Back it up with evidence. The letter is sighed by Smith and does commission Strang to lead the truth. The burden is on people that claim is is forged to prove this claim not the other way around. Your source claims that it was proven to be counterfeit, when and by whom. Just claiming that does not prove it. The website is by a person who has many mormon works and has seen this letter and from the works of Smith He has and from the letter has concluded that it in the same hand. Has your your source personally examined the letter? (114.74.225.203 (talk) 17:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC))

While the letter of appointment was clearly forged, at least according to almost every scholar who has addressed the issue, I think that saying it has been "fraudulent" seems a bit heavy-handed. We don't say, for example, that the Book of Mormon is "fraudulent", even though all non-Mormon scholars believe that it was not actually written by a Nephite prophet. "Fraudulent" (and "counterfeit", too) implies that a crime has been committed. Instead, maybe we just note that Strang claimed to have a letter from Smith appointing him as Smith's successor, which the consensus of scholars have declared a forgery. In a footnote, we might mention that the tiny surviving Strangite church considers it to be authentic. COGDEN 17:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

COgden, there is no comparison between the BofM and a letter that has been proved to be forged. In one there is nothing to compare it to i.e. it is as false/true as other books of scripture that are supposed to be the word of God. This specific letter has been shown to be a forgery. If it is brought up then it is also appropriate that we reference the opinion of scholars that it is viewed as a forgery. I am not committed to a specific word, forgery, fraud, canard, counterfeit all work; I prefer forgery. Anytime you forge another person's name, a crime has been committed. If that person was charged for the crime is irrelevant to the reality of a crime having been committed. --^StormRider 17:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, forgery is only a crime if it is intended to defraud. Whether Strange intended the forgery as a means to get money or property is a different question. The Strangites treat the letter as essentially scripture, so looking at it as a non-Strangite, it's just like any other pseudepigraphic scripture. Heck, from the point of view of most Bible scholars today, Peter's epistles were effectively forgeries too (if perhaps well-meaning forgeries). I'm just saying that while we don't need to obscure the fact that most scholars consider the letter to be Strang's own creation, there's no reason to take a step beyond that and label it "fraudulent", implying that Strang was in this for the money. COGDEN 19:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see where the problem in the communication is. I don't associate fraud to be solely related to get money. I understand the definition of forgery to be a false making of any written instrument for the purpose of fraud and/or deceit. The purpose of this letter was to deceive others into thinking that Joseph Smith appointed Strang to be the next prophet of the movement. The element of gain was not money, but for leadership or power.

I was not aware that the Strangites viewed this letter as scripture. I have never read that viewpoint. It is certainly valued and held up to prove the legitimacy of their movement and Strang's purpose. But viewing it as scripture is new to me; do you have a reference for that? I am curious about it.

I reverted the Anon's edit again today. Attempting to portray this as "some" view as a forgery in this article is unacceptable. The vast majority, as in 99.99%, view it as a forgery. The only people who do not view it as the few Strangites left today.

I hope you are not proposing that Strang presented this letter with any other reason but to deceive others. I think we need to be careful with words here. Defraud is most often associated with money. The principal we are talking about is doing something dishonest to get gain...in this case to gain leadership by deceit. --^StormRider 20:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I know that the letter of appointment is published as "section 1" of "The Revelations of James J. Strang" here. I assume that means they view it as scripture. I see what you are saying about the word forgery, but I don't think using the term here implies criminal fraudulent activity in most people's minds. Strang very well could be guilty of a criminal act, I don't know, but the sources were concerned mainly with the document's authenticity rather than Strang's state of mind. If the anonymous editor has any other suggestions for a word other than "forgery", s/he ought to propose something. COGDEN 22:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I've put a personal warning on the talk page(s) of our anonymous Strangite if someone else would like to follow through.--John Foxe (talk) 14:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Just on a side note, I am not a Strangite. I have never been a member of the Strangite church or any Mormon Church. (114.74.135.131 (talk) 15:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC))

It makes no difference. You've repeatedly added erroneous material to Wikipedia on the basis of no authority whatsoever, not even the name of the Strangite website owner. And you're in violation of WP:3RR.--John Foxe (talk) 19:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I have added no erroneous material but have stuck to the facts. The letter is signed by Smith and cmomissions Strange to lead the Church. If you claim it is foirged then provided evidence for this claim. All you have done so far is repeat your assertion that it is forged with out backing it up with evidence. (114.74.136.206 (talk) 05:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC))

(new indent) This is getting both tedious and stupid. You deleted the reference for Bushman that said the bloody letter was a forgery. If you had done ANY research you would have found other references. If you continue in this vein you will be blocked. Your edit has been reversed because it is incorrect. Do not make it again, but talk it out here on the discussion page. When edits are controversial that are discussed. If you continue with an edit war you will be blocked. I cannot make this any clearer. --^StormRider 05:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

In addition to Bushman, we can also cite Quinn (1994), pp. 210: "Modern analysts of the document have agreed with [Brigham Young's] verdict and judged the signature on the letter to be a forgery." Quinn cites a half-dozen other references for that point, including a citation to Charles Eberstadt, who was an expert in authenticating letters. COGDEN 08:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I am asking for reference to works to show that it is forged. Busgman saying it is forged without providing how it was examined and how it was shown to be forged does not make Him right about it. Please provide this. The link to the website is by a full-time professional historian with an expertise in rare Mormon documents and has concluded that it is not forged. Also please provide the half-dozen other references cities ton show that it is forged. You should keep in the article that there is dispute about whether the letter is forged as there are people on both sides of the debate.(114.74.250.38 (talk) 09:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC))

Who is this full-time historian with expertise in Mormon documents?--John Foxe (talk) 13:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought you said to me before "If you had done ANY research you would have found other references" yet you don't take this advice youself. And by that I mean if you look at the website I link to, you would see the link for the information about the person who has seen the letter and agress it is genuine. Please have a look yourself and see the information about the person. Like I keep requesting, if the so many people have concluded that the letter is forged please stop referecne to their works if you want to claim it is forged in the article. Why can't this simple thing be done. (114.74.227.53 (talk) 15:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC))

Must have been someone else who said that. Please provide the name of the expert to whom you're referring. (Providing his qualifications would be helpful.)--John Foxe (talk) 15:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell from the strangite website and the website of this "full-time professional historian" (Paul Hajicek), he's not really a historian, but rather an entrepreneurial collector with training in business and economics, rather than history or forensics. As far as I can tell, he hasn't published anything in a peer-reviewed journal or in a reliably-published book. I get no hits on Google Scholar. Until he publishes something subject to peer review, I think his comments are irrelevant for our purposes under WP:RS. COGDEN 17:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, COGDEN.--John Foxe (talk) 19:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Assassination or Death.

Since JO smith died fighting, it can hardly be considered an assassination, this account differs from ones I have heard saying he was attempting a jailbreak, either way he was obviously trying to escape. 2 Of the 3 people he shot died of their wounds also. This said I am going to change "assassination" to Death. (Estoniankaiju (talk) 01:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC))

I don't necessarily disagree with the change in the heading, but I think the predominant view is that while three or four mobsters were wounded, they didn't directly die from those wounds. The idea that two of the men died was a rumor relayed by John Taylor who like other Mormons would have been very receptive to any word of holy retribution against any of the mobsters. But it just isn't true, as far as anyone knows. Also, there's no rule of assassination that requires the assassinee to simply lie there and take it. Leon Trotsky, for example, certainly fought back. This was a targeted killing of a public figure: an assassination. COGDEN 02:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree with the use of the word "assassination."--John Foxe (talk) 20:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I have heard Estonian's logic used to refute those who seek to claim Joseph Smith was a martyr, but never applied to being assassinated. I have never like the term assassinated because I personally associate the term exclusively with political acts. However, I have never felt it was worth arguing about. I suppose if I was writing it I would use murdered, but it is not big deal. --^StormRider 20:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Really, though, it was a political act more than anything else. Religion was the deep underlying factor, but his death was most directly related to Smith's political decisions as mayor of Nauvoo and General of the Nauvoo Legion. I think "assassination" is very appropriate. COGDEN 03:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

We're fine; I was not suggesting changing it, but just sharing a personal opinion. --^StormRider 03:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Stormrider. While I prefer the term 'Martyred' the word 'Murdered' is less confusing and more accurate than the term 'Assassinated.' Any opposition to changing to 'murdered?' Canadiandy1 (talk) 03:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

I think assassinated is the most appropriate word. I have undone the most recent change to murdered, per my understanding of long term concensus on this and related articles. Has the general concensus really changed here? WBardwin (talk) 06:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I made the edit based on the common discussion that the killing of Joseph Smith by the mob is not merely a political act (or can not be agreed upon as merely a political act) and given the fact the majority of his followers view Smith's death as a martyrdom, the neutral ground would be that the killing was a murder (neutral, accurate, clear, and commonly held). Please revert the edit. Canadiandy1 (talk) 16:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

You have made yourself clear, and that is good, Canadiandy. WBardwin, despite the lack of consensus, Canadiandy was just following a WP:BRD approach to the problem, though I agree: there is no clear consensus on the matter here. As for my opinion: "assasinated", "murdered", "killed", even "martyred" should be fine, though not all would agree to the latter. The choice of wording here seems trivial. ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 03:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The choice of word in this case may, truly, be trivial. But, unfortunately, LDS articles are often attacked on the use of a single word or two. In B Fizz's list, I'm sure "martyred" would draw ire very quickly! Concensus in this article, and in related articles, has been assassinated for a long time. In my opinion, it is the best word because:

• Joseph Smith, his accusers and his attackers were on opposing sides in a bitter cultural conflict, which periodically flared into violence,
• Joseph had, just months before his death, put himself forward as a Presidential candidate,
• Joseph's arrest and incarceration was due to actions taken while he served in a political office, and
• Joseph's death was perceived by his opponents as a way to stop the growth and political influence of the Mormons in Illinois.

That said, I'm willing to go with the current concensus, whatever it may turn out to be. "Murdered" implies, to me and probably many of our readers, violence committed by one person against another and is not usually used for group violence until charges are filed. So, my second choice would be "killed through the acts of a mob" or something along that line. Best.........WBardwin (talk) 04:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

How about simply, "killed by a mob?" Canadiandy1 (talk) 06:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

All of these terms carry various nuances and death seems to be the neutral choice. In reality his death was a murder. Lynching could be an alternative, because it is accurate, but here again it has too strong associations with hanging, and African-American history. That might lead to objections. Unquestionably his death led to his martyrdom, but more so to members of the Church of LDS than to most readers. Killing is what actually happened, but that is too raw for an encyclopedia entry. My first choice would be murdered, followed by death as a second choice. Incidentally this matter was similarly rehashed at Nicholas II where some argued for using "execution", but it seemed that shooting someone in the middle of the night, without a trial, including his wife and children, and doctor, cook, and servants made this too contentious and for now "death" seems to have satisfied most parties at that article. Dr. Dan (talk) 04:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with "killed", but I'd prefer "assassinated" because it's more descriptive. "Death" is a noun, so its use is a bit awkward. "Executed" isn't bad, but I think "killed" is slightly better. "Murdered" is okay, but seems a bit over-the-top. "Martyred" is inappropriate because it invokes a religious judgment and assumes that he willingly gave his life in defense of his faith (which is debatable, given that he fought back and may have expected to be rescued by the Nauvoo Legion). COGDEN 09:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Routerone changes

Without adequate explanation, Routerone has made a number of POV changes to the lead. In the process, the literary quality of the article has also been degraded. Justification for those changes needs to be discussed here phrase by phrase.--John Foxe (talk) 12:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

For a start, I just reverted the changes what you considered "POV" to the lead myself, that's if you're talking about the great apostasy part. It wasn't intentional POV, though it was accidental through the linguistic layout of the sentence. Routerone (talk) 12:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, that edit there wasn't what we agreed to. You just tried to replace one paragraph with another and attempt to dump the "smith's followers consider him a prophet" statement, which is quite tedious. Routerone (talk) 13:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, in a hasty attempt to replace material deleted without explanation, I replaced the wrong paragraph.

Explanations for change should not be based on personal feeling, such as stating that a phrase is "quite tedious."

Again, significant—i.e. non-stylistic—changes to the lead should be discussed here phrase by phrase, and cited material should not be removed without explanation.--John Foxe (talk) 13:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Jailed in Carthage Jail

I included the fact that Joseph was jailed by State authorities in Illinois in the Carthage Jail but that fact was later removed. Who made the revert? Am I missing something? Was he not murdered in Carthage? Is someone suggesting identifying the place name of his place of murder is biased? Is anti-Mormonism rearing its discriminatory head again or have I missed something?Canadiandy1 (talk) 08:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

What ever happened to assume good faith? I didn't notice your insertion the first time, or the change back, but I'm sure the change was probably just a matter of style. The deletion was probably just about reducing the amount of relative trivia to keep the intro as short as possible, given that it is already pretty long. COGDEN 09:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I was the one who removed it, Canadiandy1. As COGDEN said, it's just a matter of style in the lead, which IMHO is already too long. (Carthage jail is prominently mentioned in the article itself, and saying that someone was jailed in a jail is unexciting writing at best.)

One of the problems with reaching NPOV at Wikipedia is that most of the contestants assume that if X is biased, the problem is best corrected not by tweaking X but by adding Y, which makes everything twice as long. So instead of saying that Joseph Smith's religion is the basis of a number of unnamed denominations, the LDS guys have to have the LDS Church mentioned, then the CoC folks want equal time, etc.--John Foxe (talk) 11:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

First, John, I did not add 'Carthage' to correct a bias. I was just shocked that it wasn't there when it is so significant a location (the LDS Church hold the property as a well preserved Visitor's Center) and was a simple addition of one word. I appreciate the newer tone of dignity of the last month or so and this has led to my supporting fair contribution (all I have seen to change is the word 'assassinate' to 'killed' and the inclusion of the place name 'Carthage.' Clearly nobody can argue an unfair bias there. My concern over the removal of the deletion merely reflected a concern that this group doesn't end up back in the polarized group dynamics of a few months ago. COgden suggested removal based on "Reducing the amount of relative trivia?" Carthage Jail is no trivial place to the LDS or the CoC. Is it already mentioned? Yes, but over half way into the article as simple detail. And do the two words 'in Carthage' really make the introduction excessively longer? JFK's even shorter introduction includes the information 'Dallas.' And Dallas is already mentioned later in that article. Canadiandy1 (talk) 18:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

To simplify further from my original edit how about going from "Accused of treason, Smith was jailed by Illinois state authorities and killed by a mob." to "Accused of treason, Smith was jailed in Carthage by Illinois state authorities and killed by a mob." Canadiandy1 (talk) 18:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

I have no problem with adding "Carthage" or substituting "killed" for "assassinated," especially if those words have significance for you. I'm sure we agree that their ideological effect on the article is zero.--John Foxe (talk) 20:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The facts that he was imprisoned, and that he was killed while in prison are crucial facts. The name and precise location of the particular prison he was held at is much less important, even though the jail is now a Mormon landmark.COGDEN 00:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Storm Rider

Thanks for your input. You write that Foxe has made his POV clear. Can you send a link to when? All I have heard him say is he is not LDS. That is not a statement of POV. POVs among LDS and Non-LDS will vary substantially. 99.199.139.154 (talk) 16:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy1

This is not an article- its an attack on Joseph Smith

In itself, this is not meeting the tone of an encyclopedia article. Rather when reading it, it seems to come across as an inaccurate, extremely critical essay, designed not at all to inform of the life of Joseph Smith but rather to attempt to disapprove of his legacy as a prophet as much as a possible.

This article is a mess, a huge mess. Being fair, the article is indeed being "controlled" by John Foxe and a fool would deny it. He likes to keep the article the way he wants it, I do not want to inflict conflict or any kind of personal attack upon the editor. However he is acting in a manner where he believes he can edit this article (and several other LDS articles) how he likes, but revert any changes to the article by anyone else, which is in conflict to his set style of the article. He likes to keep the article in a critical tone, a negative tone, and as I stated he won't allow anyone else to touch it, which in itself may not break rules but it doesn't fit in with the trend of wikipedia, afterall this is "the free encylopedia anyone can edit". Obviously by saying such I don't neglect Foxe of editing the article as a consequence, though like mentioned I do have an issue with his idea of not letting others edit it in any way other than "wording", making justifications to his own changes and binning any proposals or criticisms to changes to the article content (as this one will be).

The thing is, He wants to create a certain impression of Smith and without going into his background, he is a person who is highly critical of the LDS church (that's all I will say on that.) As a result, he doesn't have a good thought to say about Joseph Smith and is unfairly turning this article into a critical work and preventing change to it. I don't believe that it is fair at all that he should act in such a manner, there's many things that I would like to change about this article however he is proving to be a stumbling block, and if I try and halt his ways by editing the page myself, he just reverts and threatens to report me for edit warring.

If we look at other encyclopedia sources on Joseph Smith, we see no such nonsense as this one, for example Britannia encyclopedia even said "Mormon prophet" rather than going into between the lines attempts to disapprove it. The BBC biography of him is also quite different [1] as is the columbia encyclopedia entry[2]. Also, when you look at articles on other religious figures such as Mohammed, Charles Taze Russell, Ellen G. White, Martin Luther are they written in such a way to build a cruel impression of them in attempt to dissapprove the religious values that they taught?

• a) Intentional exaggeration of source material

• b) deliberately twisted wording and interpretation of source material

• c) positive information relegated to footnotes, deliberately missed out, or minimized in a certain context

• d) excessive synthesis and original research, far removed from the actual source

• e) statements irrelevant to the subject of the article, added to build a certain impression

At the end of the day, this article should be simply stating who Joseph Smith was and what he did, however its virtually doing anything but that. Like I said, a critical essay. I am not "trying to hide anything" by doing this and trying to "brush it over" for mormons (as COGDEN) once accused me of doing, but rather as an article it simply needs to be in the value of accuracy and neutrality. Currently, it provides neither of those things and the "owners" of this article (COGDEN and Foxe) can attempt to cover their bad work up as much as possible but as long as organisations such as FAIR continue to grow they will reveal the flaws in this page and in the authors again and again and again, and as a result there is no hiding it. I am concerned, and I would like to try and change this article without being reverted, threatened and bombed with wordy excuses from those who actually believe they have an authority over it and can deny everyone a say. There's clearly something wrong with it, and many others agree and I refuse to back down on such a statement, and I refuse subsequently to give in to "Mr. Foxe". I am not asking for this article to be Pro-Mormon, I am just asking for it to be correct, which it isn't. Routerone (talk) 19:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Route, I appreciate your position, but Wikipedia is an instrument that is guided by policies and procedures. However, all policies and procedures may be ignored if the majority of editors on an article choose to do so. Controversial articles abound on Wikipedia and the group of editors that are most active rule the day. If this article is really as bad as you present, then LDS only have themselves to blame. Foxe is but one individual, but he is willing to pay the price, i.e. he works, devotes times and energy, to maintain his POV on his articles. COgden does much the same thing. If other editors are not willing to be as diligent, or even more so, then they have nothing to blame but themselves.

If you think you have the proper perception of how this articles should be then move forward and be prepared to devote a great deal of your time to monitoring LDS related articles.

I have worked on these articles for many years. I would not recommend them to anyone as a first source; however, it is a source of information. It is my position that religious oriented articles need to first and foremost present the information as directed by the entity involved and then present criticism. However, this position is not a favored position and when it happens to occur, it does so because a majority of editors make it happen. If you want to make it happen get ten to fifteen knowledgeable, skilled historians who are ready to devote twenty plus hours a week for the next several years and have at it. The problem with the articles is the absence of balance, the absence of additional information, etc. --^StormRider 23:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Routerone, you are going to have to be much more specific. I don't think you can reasonably characterize this article as anti-Mormon. The article isn't perfect, but overall it closely follows Smith's two most preeminent biographers, Brodie (a respected cultural Mormon who had great positive things to say about Smith) and Bushman (a respected orthodox Mormon apologist), plus a few other prominent perspectives considered significant within Mormon studies, none of which are anti-Mormon. The material is organized so that the most academically-significant details of Smith's actions, outlook, motivations, and teachings are presented in the running text, often with the footnotes containing a little bit more detail, for color or for explanation. If you think that certain things that Smith did or said have been unfairly left out, or unfairly told when they should have been omitted, or if you think Brodie, Bushman, or other preeminent scholars are misrepresented, then lets discuss. COGDEN 01:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

SOFIXIT. Identify specific areas of concern, and bring them up on the talk page if anyone pulls the revert trigger on you. I will always be happy to help all related parties reach a consensus in such situations. ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 01:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Routerone

I completely agree with much of what you write, though I don't wish to speculate on Foxe's motivation or design (I am still waiting for him to answer what his POV on Joseph was when he undertook his editing) in seeing this flawed article entrenched, I do agree the article is not neutral and has a highly critical tone. That said, please join those of us who are trying to fix the mess as nothing will change if we don't. That's the sad state of affairs, but it's the reality. If this article is to be brought back to neutral from fringe contributors in the past it will require a huge shift in support from contributors who respect the dignity of a religious leader who most people do not believe in. Remember most people in the world do not believe in Judaism, but that doesn't make it appropriate to attack their beliefs, culture, leaders, or sensitivities. When it comes to Truth, majority rule does not apply.

Please, I'm not going to discredit your beliefs and insights because you are not a frequent contributor (the Truth shall be interpreted by the activists mindset is heavily flawed). Instead I will call for you and others who are fair-minded to jump in here with us to fix this mess. Let's help make reliable evidence and historical contextualism the litmus here and not polarized group dynamics.

In short, we got a lot of work to do, so roll up your sleeves, find one of the cynical sentences, use a fair-minded approach to improving it, let us know you're doing it, wait for the attacks from the fringe, hold your ground, edit if required, and those of us who are even and fair-minded will back you up. Maybe in a few months the individual portrayed here as a secretive, unstable, manipulative, and highly flawed political aspirant, may be seen as he is in more main-stream encyclopedic entries as a Prophet to the early Mormon pioneers who loved his family, dedicated his life to his beliefs, produced a book of scripture, and was murdered in cold blood by conspiring murderers who opposed both his religion and his political beliefs.

Some recommended reading is Bushman's A Rough Stone Rolling. It is a highly respected text here. Problem is, many of the contributors to this article in the past have used it only for the "juicy" Enquireresque bits (focus on shock value or anything inflammatory). What is missing in the use of Bushman's work is, well, anything remotely portraying Joseph Smith as dignified, intelligent, or ethically-minded which is what Bushman's work reveals strongly.

Oh yeah, the newly-published Joseph Smith Papers are likely to become the new standard source for researchers here (one could only hope we might finally see the end to Brodie-worship here) so if you want to be on the leading edge of the research borrow a copy (it's a bit pricey). Yeah you'll have to remember to qualify everything with "according to Joseph Smith," or "Joseph Smith states" or my favorite "Joseph Smith claimed" (that's a good one because it suggests what he says is questionable), but that's as good as it gets. So sentences like Joseph Smith was born in the morning of Dec. 23 in New York to Christian parents" has to look like, "Smith reported having been born. In fact, if his claims are true this event took place in the morning. Brodie questions these claims as it is impossible for him to have been aware of his birth due to his being an infant at the time. He further claims that the sun reportedly rose on that day though there have been reports that that may not be true as there were clouds covering it."

Finally, develop a thick skin. If you are a Mormon who is skeptical of Joseph Smith you will be viewed as a "Mormon expert." But if you actually believe him to, gasp, be a prophet (I believe that belief is a right of yours in the USA as long as you don't actually try to use it) you will be branded for your biased POV. But that's okay, try being a Mormon in Canada where attacks on your religion are fair game because you dare to oppose such issues as Same-sex Marriage, or abortion, or gambling.

Canadiandy1 (talk) 04:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

Canadiandy1, perhaps you could address that user at their talk page. Thanks. A Sniper (talk) 05:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

COgden, I don't think stating that Bushman (or anyone else) was used as a source and therefore the article must be good is fair or logical. Editors have chosen specific parts of his text to quote and they certainly have not included a rather large number of highly complementary text. When we cherry pick phrases we change the tone and skew the resulting text. I do agree that progress is more easily made, but that requires effort and time. I am not sure if Route or anyone else is willing to devote the time.

For example, you inserted the following text, "When Smith heard about buried treasure in Salem, Massachusetts, he traveled there to search for it,[146] perhaps thinking he could use his boyhood gifts as a treasure-seeker.[147]" Any reader can go back to Bushman's text and read the entire passage and it has an entirely different tone. More importantly, why in a main article would anyone seek to quote a "perhaps" of anything. This type of historiography where we attempt to peek into the mind of an historical figure to guess at his inner thoughts...is irresponsible, shoddy, and only seeks to titillate.

This article should be written from a more factual tone and leave off the psycho-babble that some historians are fond of these days. I would strike the entire phrase because of it. When I brought it up previously the edit was changed to include the word "perhaps" and then left in. This is the type of tone that is not scholarly and not neutral. Bushman seldom uses type of artifice (thankfully) and should not imitate quote him when he does!--^StormRider 05:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with StormRider. My following comment is directed at Routerone and Canadiandy. Note how StormRider's comment is not a complaint against a particular editor, but rather, refers to specific content in the article (which happened to be inserted by that editor). ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 06:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry—editing with multiple accounts—is indeed a serious claim. See WP:Sock puppetry. However, I believe it has at some point been established that they are separate persons. All this being said, Canadiandy/routerone, please remember to assume good faith. Also, if you hadn't already, please read my comment above. See a problem in the article? Fix it. Get reverted? Take it to the talk page.

Bad: "Editor X reverted me and is trying to control this article...[insert tl;dr rant here]..."

Good: "I made edit X, which was reverted. This is why I feel it should be restored..."

Lets see some Wikilove here. ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 06:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Storm Rider. We need to be careful what sources we use, how we use them, and then to ask ourselves why we are using them (question our internal agendas). Personally, I think of Joseph Smith as a great prophet, but my own agenda (which I am comfortable stating)is to see this article is fair, neutral, and sensitive to both his history and his followers. I am fine with this not being a religious pamphlet on Mormonism, but I likewise am angered at an article which would make Joseph seem akin more to a Jim Jones than a Martin Luther. Canadiandy1 (talk) 06:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

BFizz Sorry, I'm not sure what your issue is with my comments. I was actually trying to help put this one to rest. I have no complaint with John Foxe though I would be happier if he were to identify his POV on Joseph Smith; and as he started the attack on FAIR (a site which is actually very well regarded and resourced) I would be open-minded in hearing him refute their claims that he has a strong anti-Joseph Smith bias. But in spite of my efforts to keep an open mind, I will not ignore another contributor's legitimate expressions of dissatisfaction with the tone of the article. And as long as Foxe and COGden are senior editors his concerns over possible bias seem fair to address. From my position he should be free to express his concerns based on past evidences, and John and COgden should feel comfortable telling him he's wrong (or not) and then we can move on. People are free to ask my my POV. I'll state it readily. I believe Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God and that he was a man of excellent character, and integrity, and dignity who lived an exemplary though naturally imperfect life. And I will also state that when I contribute I put aside my bias and focus on reliable facts and evidence.

But as long as Foxe and COgden are here, we will likely have the Routerones hanging out too. I would love it if someday the Mormons and Joseph Smith haters alike could stay at 'home' and leave this stuff to fair-minded researchers with a neutral POV. You know, like the ones over at Britannica. But until that day this pendulum will swing back and forth and Wikilove will be as fleeting as a crush on Donny Osmond (respect and sympathy if there is anyone out there who still has a crush on Donny) (-: Canadiandy1 (talk) 06:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

Let's be careful for what we hope; nothing of value comes from those wholly apathetic to a topic. Fox is quite clear in his POV and he has acknowledged that in the past. In addition, he is an excellent word-smith and does a great deal to make articles more scholarly. In addition, he does his homework and works tirelessly to get his POV heard and present in the article.

This is a public encyclopedia and all are welcome to edit. For those article that are naturally controversial, such as this one, you will always have the pendulum swing. That is to be expected and the quality of articles reflects that effect.

My last point, nothing changes unless you are committed. We can each bitch and moan about how bad things are, but unless each is willing to edit the article(s) there really is no room to talk and certainly nothing which needs to be heard. Cheers. --^StormRider 08:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

So far as sockpuppets go, no evidence has been brought that John Foxe is a sock puppet. On the other hand, Routerone was blocked a little while ago by me for operating a sockpuppet - confirmed by a CU. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 10:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Despite initially posting a link in relation to Foxe's "sockpuppetry" from FAIR, I don't think sockpuppetry should come into this discussion anymore. Regardless if Hi540 and John Foxe are linked, they are not co-editing any article in question so its not a problem. The problem is, as stated, this page and its content. As I predicted, my post above would be met with severe dissapproval by some, and attempts to dissapprove what I am saying would be made (as demonstrated by COGden). However, like I said I refuse to back down. Considering Canadianlady and Stormriders points though, I do agree now that it would indeed be best to focus on discussing changes to the article in itself, rather than constantly blaming the editors that have caused the problems and get nowhere as a result. However, this does not mean I should not be skeptical of Foxe's editing activity in general, rather it means I should try and act in other ways than moaning about it. I must admit though that when I'm trying to change the article, Foxe is just firing the rollback gun on me again and again and again (this doesn't happen when I make major changes to the content on any other page, why?"). As a result because of his attitude, I simply cannot ignore him on the basis of good will (WP:LOVE) and let him wrap chains round this article, when I can see there is clearly something wrong with it. Is that right? to just let him get on with it? (Afterall, did appeasing hitler do any good?) Because without revealing personal details, he's a very clever man to be complimentary, but smart to the point that he is sly, with well planned tactics, a charm of intellect and hidden motivation. I don't believe at all he wants to see the article reformed and I feel he's doing his best to try and prevent such, if I tried to propose changes, he'd write them off I bet.

Some editors may question my civility with posts like this, but I feel personally that if I don't announce from the rooftops that there is something wrong with this page and highlight to why it is in the state it is (Foxe), then I don't think anythings going ever going to be done, afterall some may say that "Having courage is doing what you feel is right, when everyone around you is doing wrong". Foxe's attitude and intent is a brick wall and I'd like to state that this is the problem. In december 2009 when I first used FAIR's review to prove that there are problems with the article, people stood up and realised, but Foxe ran rings round them, fought them off and the article remained in the same gutless, critical style it is today. It's his lack of cooperation and approval to allow anyone outside of his mindset significantly work on the article, is infact what is stressing me down to thinking that blatant dissapproval of his editing on this state of the page (as shown by my post above) is the only method to get a point across to try and make the change. Simply because, working with him is proving to be impossible, as demonstrated by, "revert, revert, revert, stop changing the page now or I'll have you blocked for edit warring". So yes maybe moaning isn't the answer, but what am I supposed to do in a situation like this? The article is a state and Foxe is 100% intent in keeping it that way. Yes as I mentioned I'd rather work on the article than go against him, but his attitude is proving to be a stumbling block, meaning I cannot just ignore him when addressing flaws in the article, because its quite clear he's done well to stop anyone else from making major additions to it for perhaps, several years now.

Foxe has indeed worked hard on this article, but he's worked hard only to made a negative impression of Smith, serve his own viewpoint on the matter, and to supress any religious authenicity and credit he had. Yes he has used respected sources such as Bushman, however I'd like to make it clear that as Canadianlady mentioned, he's used these sources in a particular way. To be more precise he's selected certain statements and presented + worded them in a negative way, different to the actual intent and style of the source within itself. Some of the links I posted from FAIR (The ones reviewing this article, not the one making allegations against him), demonstrated violations of synthesis and neutrality policies. As usual though, this has been completely ignored. As some of those links were actually reviewing this article and legitimately pointing out flaws in it and not making accusations about Foxe's real identity, may I restore them as a means of working on this article, and hence not just complaining about the editor? It would be suitable using an exterior analysis of the page, to try and begin more civil discussions on how to improve it.

Afterall as I mentioned; I would be prepared to put effort into this page legitimately and slowly amend changes to it. However, because of problems and the situtation I have listed I have little faith in its sucess. I will try and work on the article, and get along, but I'd rather Foxe cuts out the "revert + threaten" attitude on me or being honest, its never going to work, and the article will always be a mess. You're all happy to accuse me of not helping the problems that I address, but until Foxe is recongized as part of the problem, things will never change will they? Routerone (talk) 14:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Please don't put the Fair Wiki links here. I don't see it as necessary and I do see it as an outing problem. Also, Foxe is mentioned and attacked on virtually every page you linked to. The reason I don't see it as necessary is that what you need to do is to bring up individual specific points about the changes you want in the article, probably slowly in separate sections. If something there is relevant, use it judicially (not linking to it) as you would if it were a point you were making yourself. You and Foxe should avoid discussing each other, and if either of you feels it necessary, we have methods of dispute resolution such as RFCUs, see WP:DR. There is no way you can work out your dispute on this page. Stick to the article. Go to dispute resolution if you think that is necessary. Dougweller (talk) 14:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Starting fresh

Okay, let's reset and discuss this article, not the article contributors. Are there outstanding issues with the tone or POV that need to be addressed? If so, specify them directly, not in general terms. tedder (talk) 05:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so let’s focus on the article then. In the introductory paragraphs we read in order the following chain of critical information;

• Para-military campaign
• Construction of an “expensive?” temple
• Financial Scandal
• Collapse of the Ohio Church
• Fleeing an arrest warrant
• Secret introduction of polygamy
• Secret Millennial Legislature
• Suppressing a newspaper
• Accusation of Treason

I actually looked to see if there was anything dignified said about Joseph (that wasn’t immediately qualified with a subtle criticism) and couldn’t find one.

As I see it (trying my best to be open-minded) the summary should focus on the facts he is commonly known for and remembered which are;

1. An early visitation by God and Jesus Christ
2. The receipt of the Gold Plates by the angel Moroni
3. The publication of the Book of Mormon
4. The organization of an innovative and unique Church
5. The establishment of LDS cities and the building of temples (ornate and architecturally unique).
6. The conflict between Latter-Day Saints and neighboring communities (i.e. conflict and persecution)
7. Smith’s early exploration into candidacy for the US Presidency
8. The murder of Joseph Smith while under the promised protection of the State.

Granted these items will contain the standard non-validating terms such as ‘claimed,’ ‘stated,’ and ‘according to,’ and each will be mercilessly expanded later in the article to include all the “juicy bits,” but at least the original focus is on the commonly understood facts and not the merely the cynical tidbits.

I do not question that some or even all of the present items are not true, but by focusing on them initially, removing their historical context and eliminating counterpositions on the items early on, and then by piling them on one after the other, the opening paragraphs are horribly unfair and biased.

Can anyone explain why any of my proposed 8 items or their sequence are unacceptable, or why they would be inappropriate for designing a new more neutral introductory framework? Canadiandy1 (talk) 09:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

as well as a symbolic Millennial legislature that anointed him king- I'd like to see this get shot of in the lead, as there is already enough info on it in the body of the article. This is one example of how the lead is too critical, too negative, too long and generally a mess.

In itself the statement sounds quite tedious, and has clearly been cited in attempt to be "entrenched" in this part of the article. It seems to have been included in the lead to build a certain negative impression of Smith and the statement in itself seems far removed and misleadingfrom the actual fact within itself, which was that Smith was the president of a council of 50 and gods representative on earth, not a "king", the word "king" used in the article clearly to try and give the reader an impression that Smith was power hungry and sly. The old wording "after being accused of trying to establish a theocracy" was far less direct against Smith, and on the readers impression.

As I result I propose changing it back to the old wording on this basis.Routerone (talk) 10:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Canadiandy1, the gold plates, angel, publication of the Book of Mormon, organization of the church, temple building, conflict between Mormons and their communities, candidacy for President, and murder of Smith are all are mentioned in the lead. The only item missing is the First Vision, and that's largely because Smith didn't mention it until late in his career and because, therefore, it played no influential part in his biography (in contrast to its significance in the LDS Church today).

What you’re really arguing for is not the inclusion of certain items, but the exclusion of others you don't like. You say you want the lead to focus "on the commonly understood facts and not the merely the cynical tidbits.” But by "commonly understood facts," you mean those things generally believed by members of the LDS Church. Now, consider the biography of Joseph Smith from the perspective of a non-Mormon—by far the majority of folks in this world—to whom Joseph Smith's salient characteristics are those of liar, fraud, blasphemer, polygamist, and child molester. To such a person the current even-handed lead will seem "horribly unfair and biased." And if you don't believe such folks will make their presence known, wait until COGDEN tries to promote this article to featured status.--John Foxe (talk) 11:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

John, I am not arguing for the exclusion of the Holy Juicy Tidbits that Joseph's critics wish to flog. I am merely recommending they be included in the secondary sections as they are not commonly agreed upon. You then suggest my 'commonly understood facts' are merely chosen because members of the LDS church (like myself) agree upon them. Are you suggesting a manipulation on my behalf? Good faith, eh? Which of my topics are not agreed with by both skeptics and followers of Smith alike? As to your argument that the First Vision is irrelevant because Smith didn't mention it (according to you) until later in his life. It seems to me the date at which an individual publishes an event has very little to do with its significance. And excuse me for suggesting it, but if God and his Son appeared to you at any point in your life how could anyone ever argue such an experience to be insignificant? As well, you write, "by far the majority of folks in this world—to whom Joseph Smith's salient characteristics are those of liar, fraud, blasphemer, polygamist, and child molester." And your evidence for this statement comes from where? Or have you now received plenopotentiary authority to speak for the citizens of the world. Excuse me if I sound concerned, but such a broad generalization would be easily seen by many (I can't speak for everyone) as discriminatory and prejudicial.

What a horribly un-Christian and undignified thing to say about the religious leader of our faith. I would never say anything like it about anyone else's religious leader.

Canadiandy1 (talk) 01:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

Excuse me, but under the current trend this article stands no chance of reaching featured article status, why? Because despite your arrogant opinions, there are simply too many editors aroun who would objection to it gaining such a promotion. Now in regards to this page the idea is to create a neutral article and just because people think such of joseph smith does not justify that the article. Your statement above is so contradictive that its laughable, you believe the Mormon opinions should be ruled out of this article as much as possible (as you believe they aren't allowed a say do you?), yet you think that the view of non-mormons are automatically "neutral and justified" and despite saying what they claim, you have a subjective bias to think that claiming Smith is a "liar, adulterer" is automatically correct and henceforth should be the neutral grounds. No, the sources which you have used to mess this page up are not even suggesting such (considering they were written by mormons themsleves), but rather you have manipulated them beyond a) their tone, and b) their intentions to make them look critical. I am not rejecting the other point of view in saying this, but you seem all for promoting only critical views and diminishing anything that supports Smith. That isn't fair, that isn't justice, nor is it sense, you think you can come onto this encyclopedia and make one rule for you and another for everyone else, like I said you refuse to cooperate and you're trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes by making wordy statements such as that. The biography of Smith should be neutral yes, and that means a fair evaluation of critical, neutral and apologetic evidence, that's not what you're doing. Routerone (talk) 11:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The article has a plethora of citations. What's not neutral?--John Foxe (talk) 14:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's not play that game shall we, citations? yes, neutrality no? its a well established fact of how the information from citations have been negatively interpreted, selected, twisted and worded. Routerone (talk) 14:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

"Well established fact" ? (!) No, not so much. You claiming something does not make it fact. Duke53 | ^Talk 14:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

What I was taking about was not a claim but was rather a reference to an entire analysis of this article by FAIR that shown bad interpretations of sources. Routerone (talk) 15:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not have to explain to you why, when or how I edit. If this was an lds wiki then you can use f.a.i.r.'s analysis as gospel ... here you can't. Pretty simple actually. Duke53 | ^Talk 15:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

:) Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research: the very name of this apologetic group kind of dictates what their 'analysis' will 'reveal', don't you think ? Duke53 | ^Talk 16:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Nope, they even anknowledged the parts that were "correct", even if they were critical. Routerone (talk) 16:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I have done some work on the lead. Changes explained here

• Bushman "king" citation removed- The same fact is already cited in further detail later on in the article, and seems to be stated too excessively in the lead. I also trimmed the asiding statement down and removed the word "king", which was placed in to give a negative impression of Smith.

• "Secretly introduced polygamy- removed"- The use of the word "secretly" gives quote a POV on Smith, indeed he did attempt to keep polygamy away from the public, but again we don't need this to be known in the lead, especially in the style it is presented.

• "Newspaper section shortened"- The section about the newspapers claims was too long and too indepth for the lead. The lead paragraph should be a thin outline on the subject of the individual rather than going into excessive detail, as this was doing. What the newspaper claimed can be stated later on in the article, so in the lead it should just be kept as "a newspaper published accusations on him."

Routerone (talk) 14:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand the purpose of the lead: to describe in summary what the article says below. So the lead should reflect what the article says. To remove these sentences from the lead, you need to prove that the statements are incorrect in the body of the article. You have not done so. Nor have you given any examples of non-neutral statements.--John Foxe (talk) 15:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I did not misunderstand the purpose of the lead, it indeed is to describe in summary what the article says, but not to the same extent of detail. I did not say the sentences were incorrect, rather I was simply looking at shortening them, or presenting them in a more neutrality reflected manner, I am not in conflict with what they are claiming in themselves. Routerone (talk) 15:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Eliminating material in order to advance a POV is not neutrality.--John Foxe (talk) 15:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The starting point for this discussion has to be the WP:Lead section guideline. The lead has to, above all, provide an accessible overview that hits all the main points of the article, and generates interest in the whole article. It should be able to stand on its own as a "mini-article". You have to carefully balance all the material in a way that is (1) engaging, (2) comprehensive in a very general way, (3) could stand on its own, and (4) is concise. I think that we can possibly come to an agreement on a few of the non-covered suggestions proposed by Canadiandy1, and I'm introducing an edit that I think does this. I do have a few comments about Canadiandy1's list:

• I have considered incorporating at least some mention of Smith's first vision in the lead, but this is a bit tricky. The vision was not an important part of Mormon history until 1842, just two years prior to his death. Prior to that, the great defining visions of Joseph Smith known to the church were the multiple visions of Moroni (1823-29), the vision of John the Baptist (1829, but not described until 1834), the voices of Peter, James, and John (1830, also not described until 1834), and all the visions in the Kirtland temple, including Elijah and Jesus (1836). I think it would be appropriate to mention the vision in the lead, but it fits better in the "teachings" paragraph at the end of the lead. While the first vision was not an important part of his history, it was certainly an important part of his teachings and legacy.
• The intro already mentions the gold plates and publication of the Book of Mormon, and foundation of the church, which I agree are crucial.
• My draft mentions Smith's city building. As to describing these temples as "ornate" or "architecturally unique", I would have to disagree. Neither temple was particularly ornate, and neither was architecturally unique, although they were certainly magnificent and opulent for the areas where they were built. Bushman described the Kirtland temple as having the appearance of a large, vaguely classical meetinghouse with Gothic windows (p. 216-18). The inside was a little more unique than the exterior, but Bushman only spends half a paragraph on that. As to the Nauvoo temple, Bushman spends a paragraph basically saying that its architecture was largely carried over from the Kirtland temple (p. 448). Smith's architectural ideas are certainly an interesting subject, but not one of the primary things that generate scholarship about Smith.
• The lead already covers conflict with non-Mormon neighbors.
• The lead already mention's Smith's run for President of the U.S.
• Smith's assassination is covered, perhaps even a little too much, and I have trimmed it a bit. The fact that he was under theoretically protection of the state is already implied by the fact that he was arrested and imprisoned by the state. I don't think that particular fact merits specifically being called out, particularly since that fact is not really so much about Smith himself as it is about the failure of Governor Ford. There are so many things we could say about Smith's death,

As to getting rid of any mention of the major crises and challenges of Smith's life, that would not be appropriate. Smith had more challenges than most people, and they were a major driving force in his life. This includes the failure to establish and redeem Zion in Jackson County, escaping Kirtland after a banking scandal (a major, watershed event in his life), the 1838 Mormon War (another huge one that probably was under-represented in the lead, so I've added a bit more), and especially the crisis with the Nauvoo Expositor that culminated in his death, including the reasons therefor. These were all pivotal and crucial elements of Smith's life. It would be strange not to mention these things in the lead, as no complete lead section could fail to mention them.

On another issue, I have tried to supply alternate language for Smith's coronation as millennial king. Hopefully the change is better. COGDEN 21:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

COgden, I attempted to make the intro section more neutral. It has been a while since I have read the article and I have to admit that I was a bit dismayed. The introduction should be a summary of the article itself. What I found was an attempt to introduce some very specific chronological events that are not easily covered, and certainly not explained or put in context, which easily could be seen as influencing readers to arrive at a negative conclusion about Smith. It is virtually devoid of any real interpretation of this individual's life except as it is perceived by those poor souls that believe in him as a prophet.

I found it beyond strange that the millennial government was brought up in the introduction. In the scheme of his life where we attempt to prioritize events, accomplishments, activities, etc. this could be excluded in its entirety and the article would not lose any value. In other words, its value is nothing. The over-riding idea that Joseph Smith taught was that the restored church was the millennial organization upon Jesus' return to head it. Consequently, that is return of Christ to lead during the millennium is Christian doctrine from the Patristic Fathers forward. Attempting to portray this as some heinous act to conquer the world is a highly POV context in which to discuss it.

I must say that I found the tone very slanted, context missing for events to properly present or understand them, and, in general, a very poor beginning. I know you are better than this and I also know you know history better than this. --^StormRider 21:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I, on the other hand, thought it was nicely done, COGDEN. As one who believes that Smith knew exactly what he was doing when he had himself anointed king, I was sorry to lose that word; but as a compromise, I think the current wording works well. Also, including mention of the First Vision provides the one item missing on Canadiandy1's list above.--John Foxe (talk) 22:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Storm Rider, I would have to disagree on the point about the millennial kingdom. Like everyone in Smith's day, he thought that the millennium was imminent, but unlike others who were just content to wait passively for Jesus to arrive, he actually started establishing the mechanisms, including a legislature and constitutional monarchy, to govern the world when Jesus returns. This millennial kingdom was not the same as the church. It was intended to be a multi-denominational institution. The Council of Fifty was the legislature, and Smith was the constitutional monarch. Jesus, of course, was the ultimate ruler, but Jesus was the king of many worlds, and would not permanently stay on the earth. This is all documented in Bushman (about page 520-25), Brodie (pp. 356-57), and even better in Quinn (1994), Quinn's earlier BYU Studies article, Andrus (1958) Joseph Smith and World Government, a BYU Studies article by Ehat, and probably a few other sources. The reason why I think this probably merits inclusion in the intro is because it was one of the main factors leading to the defection of William Law's group and the Expositor, leading to Smith's death. Referring to William Law's group, Bushman said, "The dissenters did not aim to overthrow Mormonism....What they hated was polygamy; the Kingdom of God, and the "tyranny" of Joseph Smith." (pp. 537-38). I'm not necessarily set on the present language in the article, but I think there ought to be something in that paragraph about Smith's theocratic aspirations, whether we refer to it as a merger of church and state, or something else. COGDEN 23:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

COgden, please do not think I am unfamiliar with Smith's thoughts or actions regarding the Council of Fifty or that I am unfamiliar with the writings of historians. What I am saying is that when one prioritizes Smith's life this chapter could be delted in its entirety and still cover all the most important actions of his life. In other words, it was simply not important. Smith himself would not value it so, the LDS Church places little value on it, the CofC places no value in it. In fact, I am not aware of any of the Latter Day Saint sect that places this at the forefront. What is curious is why Wikipedia does? It simply is not that important. In addition, if we value Bushman (which I agree we should), in a book of 740 pages, five pages addressees this topic. Does it make sense that it become a highlight of the summary of his life? Of course not. It is completely out of balance with everything else. Why?--^StormRider 23:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

You can't really gauge the importance by the number of pages in Bushman. Bushman devotes more than twice the number pages to the Kingdom of God as he does to the First Vision. He spends about the same amount of space to the Kingdom of God as he does to the founding of the Church of Christ. The importance of a subject often has to do with how much literature, and how many books and journal articles are written on the subject, and how often those articles are quoted by others. In any event, I don't see the Kingdom of God as a highlight of his life, just as one of the factors contributing to his death. The main point is that in Nauvoo, a group of defectors got upset about stuff and published a criticism, Smith suppressed it, and then he would up in legal and political trouble that cost him his life. It seems strange to leave out what the "stuff" was. COGDEN 00:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

That bit on number of pages was just a parting comment; a peculiarity that exists. It was not intended as a proof of any kind. The point remains that this particular point was not a leading cause or even a leading event of his life. I appreciate your summary above of what should be discussed. However, I feel that your some of the things you wish to highlight seem out of balance with what many historians would state. This may be an area of particular interest to you as it is with others. Though I appreciate and respect topics of personal interest, it is not appropriate to allow them to become emphasized more than what is appropriate.

The only thing I am advocating is balance and what is appropriate in an introduction. BTW, I disagree with the proposal to limit the introduction to the bare minimum of facts as proposed below. The intro should summarize the article itself (to which we both agree), but some concern about balance should be used. I would urge you to consider that this particular topic is of little value to the lead and of only cursory value to the body itself. --^StormRider 01:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1

Okay. A new tack. (tact?) If the lede was pared down to "Joseph Smith was born X and died Y", what would be missing? Suppose the lede was only a few sentences. What's critical to have in the lede besides this?

Ignorantly, here's what I think. Each of these should be no more than one sentence.

1. Born, birthplace and died, deathplace
2. Founding of LDS church, first prophet (not considered a prophet, but is a prophet), found and translated Book of Mormon. (no controversy needed in this lede)
3. Very brief (one-sentence) mention of "worldly" dealings, polygamy, extermination order, prison, mob, death.

That's it. Three sentences. What is missing? Don't come up with a list of a dozen things. Please mention ONE. tedder (talk) 23:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

According to WP:Lead section, the "appropriate length of the lead section depends on the total length of the article," with a lead for an article of this size recommended to be "three or four paragraphs."--John Foxe (talk) 00:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Great. I totally agree, it should be longer. But what is missing that is important? I'm proposing to start very small and agree on it at a small length. If we can agree on three sentences, perhaps we'll get to four paragraphs eventually. tedder (talk) 00:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I prefer shorter. I also want to explain that my proposal for a simple 8 topic introduction was not merely chosen for its general consensus-building, but also because it follows the development of Smith's legacy chronologically. This lends itself to better readability, less confusion, and hopefully less loaded debate. Until we can collectively grow up and stop treating this as a venue for our collective religious propoganda, the less we can say here, it seems, the better.

The discussion that the rest of the article is long and therefore the intro should be long is a moot point. The article is also way too long as it has become a dumping ground for every speculative attack on Smith. Simplify the article, focus on the key reliable facts, and in turn simplify the wordy, negative, and insensitive introduction, and then chuck out the stuff that is speculative and/or insignificant (again, Joseph Smith's claim he saw and spoke with God and Jesus Christ could never be effectively argued as insignificant in Joseph's life).

Canadiandy1 (talk) 01:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

One other note, the article now includes mention of the First Vision, (progress, smiles) but to suggest that the Church restoration was the product of Joseph's visions is not what the LDS believe. The visions, they believe were merely the vehicle for a restoration of Christ's authority. In essence, the restoration, they believe, happened because Jesus Christ restored his Priesthood to the earth. So, simply, Jesus Christ restored his Church through Joseph Smith would be an accurate assessment, Joseph Smith restored the Church because of his visions would not be. "Through the visions and visits of angels from God, Latter-Day Saints believe, Jesus Christ was able to restore his Priesthood through his earthly prophet Joseph Smith." Tweak that one and you'll have a much more accurate statement.

Hope we've finally turned a corner here.

Canadiandy1 (talk) 01:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

My thoughts on the matter: I do very much agree that the lede should be shorter. The items you include in your suggested lede look good to me. But I don't think that "starting fresh" and replacing the entire lede is going to be well-received. Rather, I suggest we pare down the existing lede until the bare bones of important ideas are left. ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 02:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I've made a flurry of cuts to the intro. Please review them and undo those you feel are extreme, explaining why you do so as clearly as possible. One such cut completely removed the theodemocracy sentence that Foxe and some others apparently worked hard on to build consensus. I apologize, but I felt it too lengthy for the intro. ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 03:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow, much better B Fizz! The only thing I would add might be a position statement that Smith was never found guilty of any of the accusations against him (treason) and that the charges against him were likely trumped up for political means, but even then this now looks much more fair.. Canadiandy1 (talk) 03:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

It's kind of obvious he wasn't found guilty, considering he was killed in prison while awaiting trial. Whether he would have been found guilty by a jury in Carthage is another question. He very well might have. COGDEN 05:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

"Very well might have?" Is that why States like Missouri have extended formal apologies for their treatments of the Mormons? True neutrally-minded legal historians would likely be able to see through the horrible legal treatment of Joseph Smith and other Church leaders. What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty? How far from Carthage IS Salem? Canadiandy1 (talk) 02:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

B Fizz, referring to "polygamy and theodemocracy" instead of what was there before might work. It's certainly shorter, and it preserves the reference to millennial theocracy. I'm inclined to go with it. COGDEN 05:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the lede is a vast improvement over what was there previously. It is brief, direct and NPOV. Congrats. Best, A Sniper (talk) 06:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the praise. I'll be convinced that the change was good when Foxe says the same. ;) See my comments below for more intro-changing fun. ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 07:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2

One of my cuts included removing mention of the First Vision. While I still hold that the sentence it was in was awkward, I do want mention of the First Vision back in the intro somewhere, somehow. Without getting too preachy, perhaps in the 4th intro paragraph we could say something along the lines of "Smith's followers believe that his First Vision broke a long period of apostasy, and that Smith restored ___", fill in the blank with "priesthood keys which had been lost" or "the kingdom of god on earth" or whatever. I know, that's still too preachy. How can we communicate that idea more concisely?

For reference: the statement that I removed was this: "They believe the Latter Day Saint restoration was the result of a series of Smith's visions, most prominently his First Vision, a theophany." Perhaps we can transform that into something that flows a little better. ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 08:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Now that the lead's been shortened considerably, inclusion of the First Vision is unnecessary. It was hardly known in Smith's lifetime and played almost no role in the Mormonism of his day.--John Foxe (talk) 14:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more. Whether it played a role in Mormonism or not, the topic of the article is Joseph Smith Jr. and not Mormonism. His testimony relating to seeing God and Jesus Christ played a central role in his spiritual development and received priority emphasis in his own written history.

I agree with Foxe on this point. Despite its later significance in the Latter Day Saint movement after his death, the first vision desn't impact Smith's biography enough to warrant a place in the lead. I suppose it would be better to include that "Smith claimed to have recieved relevations and visions from god" in the lead instead, as then that will not be specifically mentioning the first vision (but rather referencing it), it will also be referencing the Doctrine & Convenants, which had a major role in Smith's establishment of the church and its doctrine. Afterall is important to give some mention to Smith's relevations and visions in the lead paragraph, as these indeed did play an essential part of his life (even if the first vision didn't). Routerone (talk) 14:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. But I'll be keeping my eye out for a tactful way to squeeze it in one of these days. ;) ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 01:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

B Fizz, how about, "Smith's followers believe that his First Vision was a key event in Joseph's spiritual preparation and the restoration of Christ's church." Canadiandy1 (talk) 02:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

Seeing no opposition to the above I will add it in tomorrow unless there is a strong argument against.Canadiandy1 (talk) 01:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

I'd feel better if the wording was different. "Some followers" is very peacock-ish, it sounds a bit like a description of The Stig. If it was couched in more neutral and Joseph-Smith direct terms, that would be better. For instance: "Followers of (the LDS churches) believe that his First Vision was key to Joseph's establishment of (pick whatever LDS church you like here too)." tedder (talk) 02:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Libel, martial law, and treason

I've reworded the section of the intro that deals with the events surrounding Smith's death. I'm not entirely satisfied with the result, primarily because it's not any shorter, but I feel it's a step towards a more clear and neutral view of the situation.

I branded the Expositor as "libelous", and removed the mention of martial law and treason. Now before you yell at me for imposing my POV on the section, please consider the reality of the situation.

Libelous: calling people "one of the blackest and basest scoundrels that has appeared upon the stage of human existence...", "heaven daring, hell deserving, God forsaken villains...", and "blood thirsty and murderous propensities of men, or rather demons in human shape, who, not satisfied with practising their dupes upon a credulous and superstitious people, must wreak their vengeance upon any who may dare to come in contact with them..." (Wikisource:Nauvoo Expositor) seems to fit the "libel" description. Or perhaps we should change the word to slanderous? I believe that might be the more correct term. There is more than simply "criticism of Smith's power and morals" that drove him and the Nauvoo council to destroy the Expositor.

Martial law: due to removing the accusation of treason, this seemed like an outlier in the summary style of the intro.

Treason: Smith was accused of treason, but that is not what led to his imprisonment. I reworded the statement to reflect the accusation that led to his imprisonment: the issue of the Expositor. I was going to include the word "illegally" in the description of destroying the Expositor, but apparently it wasn't illegal at the time.

That's about it for now. Please review my work and improve upon it; if you disagree then please make yourself clear as to why. ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 07:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you've done a good job, B. Everything else being equal, I prefer "shorter." Most of my changes are stylistic cuts (including one misplaced modifier). But I did remove "libelous" on the grounds that though the language used by the newspaper would be out-of-bounds today, such hyperbole was not unusual for the time. Such billingsgate was used by Mormons themselves, and it is more than questionable that a period jury would have convicted the editors of libel. I also removed "theodemocracy" on the grounds that no reader coming to Joseph Smith for the first time would have a clue.--John Foxe (talk) 10:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Foxe. Your copyediting and stylistic cuts are always appreciated. The two specific cuts you mention here I disagree with. Perhaps instead of "libelous" we could use "sladerous"? According to wiktionary, "slanderous" means: "(of something said) Both untrue and harmful to a reputation." It's unclear whether obvious hyperbole technically fits into this category, but as I said above, we should make it clear that Smith didn't suppress the Expositor simply because it opposed him, it was because it opposed so forcefully and disruptively. As for "theodemocracy", it is a big factor that led to antagonism against Smith; you're right that practically no one will understand the term at first, but that's what wikilinks are for, right? I haven't added these terms back in; I'd like to hear from other editors on the matter first. ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 16:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

B Fizz, I come at this from a lawyer's perspective, but it's not clear to me that the examples you provided were libelous. They were opinions, and the press then, as now, have a right to express their opinions even in grotesque over-the-top terms. They were, as now, also free to get their facts wrong about public figures if they were at least sincere about it. Although the U.S. First Amendment didn't apply to states prior to the Civil War, Illinois' constitution had its own free speech clause, and in American culture, the right of the press to criticize government has always been pretty carefully guarded, and papers given wide latitude. The Nauvoo city council's justification for destroying the Expositor was not because of libel, but because they argued the paper was a public nuisance--that the paper was going to incite riots. Turns out, unfortunately, that the destruction of the paper is what caused the riots, and ironically the first arrest warrant against Smith was for causing a riot.

I agree there is no reason to include the word "illegally" in the description of destroying the Nauvoo expositor. Whether Smith and the council had legal justification for destroying the press was never resolved, and even if there was no justification, he may have had some kind of immunity anyway as a public official. Smith was not charged for violating free speech--he was charged for starting a riot, and then later for treason because of his declaration of martial law. COGDEN 19:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to defend the language of the Expositor or even some of its charges; but the fact of the matter is that Smith suppressed the paper because it exposed his practice of plural marriage, which he had repeatedly denied. In other words, it wasn't the lies of the Expositor that bothered him so much as the truths. The problem with adding "slanderous" to the sentence is that to balance it, you'd also need to mention that it exposed Smith's polygamy. And once you open that can of worms, it will be hard to get the worms back in the can. As for "theodemocracy," I think it best not to use any word in a lead that couldn't be found in a dictionary.--John Foxe (talk) 19:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

John, your statement suggests an unfair bias here. You state, "...the fact of the matter is that Smith suppressed the paper because it exposed his practice of plural marriage, which he had repeatedly denied." That is a fact? I am not aware of any writing in which Joseph stated that was his motivation. I believe in legal terms this is called speculation. Please stick to the facts and reliable references. Canadiandy1 (talk) 02:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

Though I like brevity, I still wonder if we should back away from brevity just a bit here. That third paragraph mentions the Nauvoo Legion, mentions polygamy, and mentions the Expositor, but doesn't tie these three things together. There is a natural progression here: polygamy --> Expositor --> Legion --> arrest and death. It seems a shame to mention all these elements but fail to show how they relate to each other. I made a revision in the text, which I am also reproducing here, for future reference:

After escaping from captivity in 1839, Smith directed the conversion of a swampland into Nauvoo, Illinois, where he became both mayor and commander of a semi-private militia. In 1844, as Smith was running for President of the United States, he and his city council ordered the destruction of a Nauvoo newspaper critical of Smith's power and several new doctrines he had been teaching, including plural marriage. After declaring martial law to control public outrage, Smith surrendered to Illinois state authorities and was killed by a mob while awaiting trial in Carthage, Illinois.

COGDEN 19:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Some questions this brings up:

1. What is a semi-private militia? Was this common for the time period i.e. were there others. Was this unusual or the unique work of a despot run amok?
2. "Critical of Smith's power and several new doctrines he had been teaching" - how about, Critical of Smith's teachings?
3. "declaring martial law to control public outrage" - outrage from where? In Nauvoo? Those outside of Nauvoo? From his own people or just outsiders?
4. Illinois state authorities? He surrendered to the governor who guaranteed his safety. Let's just say the governor.
5. "killed by a mob" without any clarification. Given the preceding statement of martial law, does this mean he was killed by his own people?

This needs to be tightened up; if not, it leaves the reader to initially conclude some very bizarre ideas that have nothing in common with reality. --^StormRider 21:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I like the improvement, COgden. StormRider brings up a lot of good points. I slightly disagree with #2: Smith's power is, as I understand it, a big part of the Expositor's criticism. I also raise a concern of my own: "Smith surrendered to Illinois state authorities"...why? Currently, the "Nauvoo Expositor" section of our article states:

Nauvoo Mormons feared reprisals from the non-Mormons, and non-Mormons were apprehensive about the Nauvoo Legion, especially after Smith declared martial law on June 18. Illinois Governor Thomas Ford, desperately trying to prevent civil war, then mobilized the state militia.[ref] The governor promised Smith that he would provide protection if Smith would stand trial at Carthage for the destruction of the newspaper.

Are there further reasons why Smith was sought after by "the authorities"? Should the article be clarified? Are there any good Bushman statements on this vague situation? How much of this should be stated in the lede? Furthermore: not trying to beat up a dead horse, but the article also states:

On June 10, the Nauvoo city council passed an ordinance about libels; and Smith, as mayor, ordered the city marshal to destroy the paper.[ref]

Perhaps we can make it clear (in the lede) that Smith ordered the destruction of the Expositor according to recent city legislation regarding libel and disturbance of peace? If the only thing we say about the Expositor is that it was critical of Smith and that therefore Smith suppressed it, then we haven't presented a neutral representation of the situation. Foxe: D&C 132 says it was recorded on July 12, 1843; the Expositor printed about a year later. I'm not saying it was in wide circulation by then, but your assertion—that Smith's true reason for suppressing the Expositor was because it exposed polygamy—is an incomplete view of the situation. I've only skimmed the Expositor (on wikisource), but it doesn't seem to make a very strong statement against plural marriage, only mentioning it a few times. ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 01:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It would be a gross oversimplification to say that the Expositor was suppressed "because it exposed polygamy". But I think it is pretty well established that the polygamy allegation was a factor in deciding to suppress the paper. This allegation that Smith practiced polygamy was one of the "libels" that the council deemed so inflammatory as to constitute a public nuisance. The city council even specifically asked Smith about polygamy during their deliberations. See Brodie p. 377. COGDEN 08:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Canadiandy1, you need to understand the nature of evidence here at Wikipedia. Here's what Brodie says about the Expositor crisis:

“Polygamy was only the first of a long list of practices signaled out for attack…. The Expositor spread consternation throughout the city. Those who were practicing polygamy feared a massacre by the anti-Mormons; those who had been kept in ignorance were overwhelmed by the realization that all the surreptitious gossip might after all be true…. When the prophet read the Expositor through, he knew that he was facing the gravest crisis of his life. Perhaps if Joseph had faced them with the truth and had gone to the platform in the unfinished temple and read the revelation on plural marriage to his church with his old magnificent assurance, he might have stripped the apostates of their chief weapon and freed his loyal followers from a burden of secrecy, evasion, and lying that was rapidly becoming intolerable.” Brodie, 369-70.

Although if I were editing at this article, I would try to cite Bushman, I’ve quoted Brodie because she and her biography are abominated by the LDS Church. LDS hatred for her makes no difference at Wikipedia. Brodie is an authority, her statements are true for purposes of this encyclopedia—not speculation, presuppositions, or gossip. They are authoritative unless another authority can be cited to the contrary.--John Foxe (talk) 19:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

So let me get this straight, you are suggesting that when Brodie (a scholar who while prominent has been heavily criticized for her methodology) makes a wildly speculative and obviously sarcastic statement from a position of apparent bias, the fact nobody else has speculated an opposing position (I always thought good researchers avoided wild speculation) makes her statement not only valuable but actually constitutes absolute irrefutable truth? This line of argument is extremely questionable. You know Bushman believed Joseph Smith to be a true prophet of God. And Bushman is a prominent scholar. Therefore, we should be able to include in this article the truth that Joseph Smith was called by God to organize Christ's Church upon the earth. How comfortable would you be if we did that?

You also write, "I’ve quoted Brodie because she and her biography are abominated by the LDS Church." Am I missing something? Do you mean you selected her as a source because (in your opinion)the Church views her writing as an abomination? Is 'abominated' even proper grammar for this context (kind of like those who use the word 'orientate' when they mean 'orient.' And your statement suggests your selection for her reference is based on the fact the LDS Church is offended by her views (I wasn't aware of any official Church statement declaring her work an abomination but would be interested in any evidence you could provide). From an academic standpoint this seems quite mean-spirited and close-minded. If your battle is with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints this is not meant to be a forum for that. Canadiandy1 (talk) 01:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

I don't believe Brodie's statement sarcastic or wildly speculative. In fact, I think she's dead on with Smith's motivation. As for Bushman's religious beliefs, it would be no more appropriate to cite them here than it would to mention Brodie's agnosticism.

You understood correctly that I chose to quote Brodie as an example because the LDS Church "abominated" her work. ("To abominate" is perfectly acceptable grammar.) And you also understood correctly that in so far as Wikipedia is concerned, Brodie's statement is "not only valuable but actually constitutes absolute irrefutable truth"—unless, of course, it is countered by other reputable authorities. In other words, if Joseph says nothing about his motivations, and Brodie does, Brodie is Wikipedia truth.--John Foxe (talk) 16:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

You seriously select your sources based on whether they offend the LDS church? Wow, please try to leave your biases at the "Wikipedia door." Canadiandy1 (talk) 01:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

Simply to make the point that a source that "offends the LDS church" (your words, suggesting that what I said above was true despite your protestations) has more authority than no statement at all from Joseph Smith.--John Foxe (talk) 19:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say abominated. Maybe by old-style apologists like Hugh Nibley. But I don't think it's fashionable any longer for Mormon apologists to be dismissive of Brodie, at least among scholars who care about their reputation in the academic mainstream. They may not agree with everything, but they recognize it as an important work and take it seriously. COGDEN 20:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I would agree. I know of no LDS historian that would discuss Brodie in such a fashion. Her work was important for many reasons and she has some definite shortcomings. Mainly that she appears to have ignored sources that conflicted with her objective. This causes any historian to question her conclusions. When any historian draws a conclusion and it is used in any Wiki article, the conclusion should be attribtuted to the historian; it is misleading if we state it as historical fact. --^StormRider 20:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that depends on whether or not her opinion is controverted by any other reliable (presumably non-"fringe", I guess) source. In some sense, almost everything that a historian says is a conclusion based on synthesizing a lot of historical information, which is their job to do. If the conclusion is not controverted, and it has had sufficient peer review that it would have been controverted if it were controversial, then I think we can state it as fact. We already cite to a lot of Bushman's analytical conclusions that way, as facts. COGDEN 21:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense to me, i.e. that the conclusion drawn is not controversial or disputed. However, statements like "Perhaps if Joseph had faced them with the truth and had gone to the platform in the unfinished temple..." This is a personal opinion similar to Bushman's statement above that I also disagreed about. If we were to use this quote without attributing it, we have moved outside of neutrality. This is not factual, but opinion and opinions may be acceptable if editors think they are vital, but I think they should still be attributed to the speaker. Brodie states...

I am an advocate of neutrality and using the same standards for all regardless of their position. --^StormRider 21:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, Storm. Personally I wouldn't use such a quotation here without attribution. And since every conservative Mormon would roll their eyes at such a statement from Brodie, as a practical matter, I wouldn't use the quotation at all.--John Foxe (talk) 22:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, attribution like that sticks out like a sore thumb in the introductory paragraphs; otherwise, we wouldn't be having this lengthy conversation. ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 02:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Fun game! Fill in the blank

Joseph Smith and the Nauvoo city council suppressed the Nauvoo Expositor because _____.

Rules:

1. The answer should be easily adaptable to fit into this form as well:

...he and his city council ordered the destruction of a Nauvoo newspaper...

[which ____ OR because _____ OR critical of ____ OR similar]"

2. The answer should be something that (nearly) everyone in this conversation could agree with.

3. The answer should be short.

4. The answer should be correct (complete and unbiased).

Let the game begin. Post your suggestion(s) below, but above the commentary section.

• it was critical of Smith's power and several of his new revelations, including plural marriage. - WP community thusfar
• it infringed recently-passed city laws regarding libel. - B Fizz
• to protect the safety of the saints. - Canadiandy1
• the council believed it would cause riots. - B Fizz
• they believed the paper's criticism of Smith's power and new doctrines such as plural marriage were inflammatory (but see my comments) COGDEN 08:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Commentary on the game

Statements about the game, or about proposals submitted above, are not to be discussed above, but rather, here.

I have given a sample submission to the game, but I don't think it's very complete. Dare you to do better! ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 02:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

"...because he felt it was required to protect the safety of the Saints." As the history records, the resulting action was the imprisonment and murder of Joseph, which ironically served to provide the Saints with a greater peace and security than they had known for a long season.

Remember, "The destruction of the Expositor issue was legal; it was not legal to have destroyed the type, but this was a civil matter, not a criminal one, and one which Joseph was willing to pay for." (FAIR LDS).

As one early Saint recorded, "Brother Joseph called a meeting at his own house and told us that God showed to him in an open vision in daylight [meaning that this was not something he had just conjured up in dreams of the night] that if he did not destroy that printing press that it would cause the blood of the Saints to flow in the streets and by this was that evil destroyed." Diary of George Laub, BYU Special Collections, 18

Canadiandy1 (talk) 03:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

I posted your idea above, as well as another post highlighting the underlying idea. While all ideas are thus far true to some degree, not one is comprehensive enough. ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 06:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the way the question is posed above is the best way to put it. We don't need to give the reasons why the Council did what it did. A minimal accurate statement of the documented reasons might go something like this: the Council believed the paper contained lies (relying in part on Smith's representation that his revelation on polygamy (D&C 132) did not apply to modern times), that those lies were so inflammatory that they were likely to cause a riot, and that the paper's proprietors were immoral and dishonest. That's obviously too large to put in the intro. Rather than go this route, I think it's better to just say what happened: When a Nauvoo newspaper published criticism of Smith's power and newly-introduced doctrines, such as plural marriage, Smith and the Nauvoo city council ordered the paper's destruction as a nuisance. COGDEN 08:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with COGDEN—although he'll have to forgive me for tweaking his sentence. At least in the lead, rambles about libel and public safety would be weaselly apologetics. As I said above, Smith was not concerned about the lies but the truths.--John Foxe (talk) 14:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Come on John. Rambles? Weaselly? I'm not getting into that mud-slinging, sorry. What I would like to know more about is how you get to speak with such authority that you even know Joseph Smith's thoughts and motivations.Canadiandy1 (talk) 01:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

My opinion about Joseph Smith's thoughts and motivations is irrelevant. Brodie, on the contrary, is Wikipedia authority, absolutely veracious unless proved otherwise. And you should be aware that Wikipedia privileges secondary sources above primary ones.--John Foxe (talk) 19:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the word "nuisance" encapsulates the "libel" and "public safety" angles. Legally, libel was a subordinate issue to nuisance--nuisance was the true legal justification they used, libel being just one of the elements required to demonstrate the paper was a nuisance. Actually, though, I don't necessarily think we even need to include mention of nuisance (we could just say "ordered the paper's destruction"), but if it will help come to some agreement, it's just a couple of words. Another possibility is to say something like "ordered the paper's destruction as being inflammatory". But of the two, I think using the word "nuisance" or "public nuisance" is better, given that that it's the word and the legal justification the Councilmen used themselves. COGDEN 19:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. It's preferable to use the word "nuisance" because of its specific legal meaning.

In passing, historical causation can always be addressed on a number of levels. For instance, why did Charles I die? 1.It was God's will. 2. He had many enemies. 3. His head got in the way of an ax. All these are accurate answers; none communicate the sort of information we expect in a history.--John Foxe (talk) 20:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The gripe I have with the current wording is that it goes like this: Paper criticizes Smith; Smith destroys paper. There is an implied "because" in this kind of statement; it's practically the counterpart of what Foxe deems "weaselly apologetics": it's weaselly critcism. COgden, your suggestion is definitely a step in the right direction. Perhaps we could place an adjective on the paper or its criticism, for example "an inflammatory Nauvoo newspaper" or "exaggerated critcism"? ("exagerrated" referring to the hyperbole used in the paper) ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 20:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

(←) B Fizz, would it be acceptable if the sentence said basically "Paper publishes exaggerated criticism; Smith destroys paper"? tedder (talk) 20:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if I would forever deem it "acceptable", but for all intents and purposes, yes. ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 19:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, I like "Paper criticizes Smith; Smith destroys paper." That's as bold, unweaselly, and true to the facts as anything that's been said here yet. Of course, our Wikipedia selves have to be more measured.--John Foxe (talk) 21:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Nope, John. "Paper criticizes Smith; Smith destroys paper." is misleading. It suggests that Smith's motivation in destroying the press was merely its criticism of him. While you may think you know his motivation this would be historically unfair and clearly biased. At least in this context there should be room for opposing views and statements as the diary source above. Canadiandy1 (talk) 01:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

To prove me wrong, you must prove Brodie wrong; and Wikipedia privileges the opinion of experts like Brodie and Bushman over primary sources like the diary entry. (Sounds odd to anyone who's ever done historical research, but that's the way Wikipedia works.)--John Foxe (talk) 19:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Attempting to qualify it as "exaggerated" or even "inflammatory" goes too far. The newspaper was critical of Smith and what they perceived his actions, his teachings, etc were. Just keep it as simple as possible and you would do better. --^StormRider 22:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

If I called you one of the "blackest and basest scoundrels", wouldn't you say that's an exaggerated criticism? Inflammatory, perhaps? Surely there's an even-minded historian that has labeled the Expositor as such.

On a related note, according to the Nauvoo Expositor article,

Dallin H Oaks, then a professor at the University of Chicago Law School opined that...under the law of the time the newspaper certainly could have been declared libelous and therefore a public nuisance by the Nauvoo City Council

There: like Brodie, here we have someone with both credentials and obvious bias (Oaks later became an apostle of the church). We need not ride on the opinion of Brodie alone. ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 19:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, way too much detail for the intro, and is really a side issue. Not only were the finer legal points of legality pretty irrelevant to what happened (Bushman can be cited for that argument), but it was Smith's declaration of martial law that really got him in trouble with the law. Moreover, in the final analysis, Oaks concluded that the City Council's actions in destroying the Expositor press were illegal. (Oaks concluded that, had the Council only destroyed all copies of the paper, and not the press, the acts might have been legal--an interesting hypothetical for lawyers to muse about, but not really relevant to the historical facts) But like I say, all this is too much information for the intro. COGDEN 22:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I quite agree that it's too much information for the intro. I just bring it up because I don't think the summary of these events should be a Brodie-only point of view. ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 22:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

B, how about if I said, "Come on! ye persecutors! ye false swearers....I boast that no man ever did such a work as I....How I do love to hear the wolves howl!...What a thing it is for man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can find only one." Following that boastful, lying tirade of May 26, the Expositor's description of Smith as one of the "blackest and basest scoundrels" seems pretty tame, completely understandable during a period in which hyperbole was newspaper stock-in-trade.--John Foxe (talk) 23:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Hyperbole may have been common then, but it is not nearly as common in today's newspapers. Hence my concern: simply presenting the Expositor as criticizing Smith leads today's reader to view the Expositor as being much less inflammatory than it was. ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 22:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Newspapers were much more biased and inflammatory in the early nineteenth century than they are today because they were usually the mouthpiece of one or another political party. There was usually not even a tip of the hat to balanced coverage. Brodie notes that before publishing the first (and last) issue of the Expositor, William Law had determined that "nothing 'carnal'" should be printed and that therefore the newspaper issue was—"considering the facts at the editor's disposal—an extraordinarily restrained document." (374)--John Foxe (talk) 01:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Implementation

I have implemented the change suggested by COgden, tweaking it slightly.

In 1843, he announced his candidacy for President of the United States. The next year, when the Nauvoo Expositor published criticism of his power and newly-introduced doctrines, including plural marriage, Smith and the Nauvoo city council ordered the paper's destruction as a nuisance.

I feel that naming the Nauvoo Expositor invites the interested reader to click the link and understand the paper's nature and further circumstances surrounding it. Wikilinking the word nuisance also provides the untold portion of reasoning behind Smith's suppression of the paper that I was wanting. We may want to consider changing the word "nuisance" to public nuisance; I'm not particularly sure if the public nuisance article is the appropriate target or not. What do you all think of this wording? I, for one, am satisfied. ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 07:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Legacy: writings

The "Writings" subsection of the "Legacy" section of the article should either be improved or removed. Do we want to include basically a prose form of the list article Works relating to Joseph Smith, Jr.? Is this subsection for the discussion of writings by Smith or writings regarding Smith? ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 06:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Dump it, sez I. Too heavy on Smith attack propoganda. Yes, I see the nice links to some of the Church materials, but mixing with it the anti-Mormon drivel, is like ordering diet coke with your Big Mac and calling it a balanced meal. I wonder if the Wiki article on Judaism contains as many anti-semitic sources as pro? 99.199.139.154 (talk) 04:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

If we choose to restrict this section to writings by Smith, then we would only use the "teachings and writings" section of that article, which only lists the reproductions of Smith's teachings; there's your "balanced meal". I'm not opposed to removing the "Writings" section, though. ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 04:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this section ought to be a list of works about Smith. There are too many. If anything, it would be works by Smith, like the Book of Mormon, etc. I don't have a problem with just deleting the section. Maybe the "memorials" section as well. COGDEN 05:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted the section with the thought that it can be resurrected later if there's a consensus in its favor. "Memorials" already has some content, so I thought it safer to leave it.--John Foxe (talk) 14:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Subsections in Smith's life

Semi-recently the article has undergone stylistic changes as the article broke out the Teachings section from Smith's life. Included in this change was a reduction in subsections, which I feel makes the article harder to navigate.

I propose that, as a general rule of thumb, we format each major section of Smith's life as follows:

1. Section title
2. {{Main}} template
3. 1 or 2-paragraph summary of section, very similar to intro section of corresponding main article(s)
4. subheadings and subsections that roughly follow the corresponding headings in the main article(s)

Sometimes, the subheadings/subsections will be a composite of multiple headings in the corresponding main article. For example, the Early years section need not have subheadings "Childhood", "Religious background", "First vision", "Treasure diggint + marriage", "Moroni and the golden plates", and "Move to Harmony". Rather, we could combine these into, say for example, three subheadings: "Childhood and religious background", "Treasure digging and marriage", and "Divine visitations".

But my point is, we should reinstate subheadings in an orderly fashion to promote the readability and navigability of the article. ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 00:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree. Each of the sections proceeds pretty chronologically, and I don't see an easy way to break them down in a way that makes logical sense. Plus, looking at the "Early years" section, there are only four paragraphs. For sub-headings to be worthwhile, you need at least two, but preferably three of them in each section, and I don't think it's a good idea to have one-paragraph sub-sections. The longest section is Nauvoo, with seven paragraphs, but how would we divide them logically? Given the choice, I would rather have more sections (by, for example, separating the Nauvoo period into two parts) than to introduce a new hierarchy of subheadings. Plus, we might have to end up cutting down the size of the existing sections a bit more, anyway, if reviewers complain that the article is too big. COGDEN 01:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding plural marriage

John

"Lying?" Your heavy bias against Joseph is muddying your work here. But since you brought it up, we should investigate Smith's own statement. There is an often perpetuated exaggeration as to whether Joseph ever had more than one wife, and especially whether he fathered other children. One more recent study by Ugo A. Perego, MSc, states the following in its findings;

In her book No Man Knows My History, author Fawn Brodie speculates that Moroni was Joseph Smith's son, based on a number of her assumptions. I was not familiar with this situation until I received a phone call from one of Moroni Pratt's descendants. The person that called me believed that Joseph Smith was his ancestor and not Parley P. Pratt, the recorded father of Moroni. That was my first experience with regards of looking into Joseph Smith's "other" children. Since then, a few more people have contacted me with similar questions. I soon realized that not all the cases were as strong and that there were some obvious discrepancies in some of the accounts. Before considering working on a specific case study, I would ask questions like, "When was this alleged child born?" or "How did you learn about this story?" Logically, the child under consideration must be born within 10 months from Joseph Smith's death. In the case of Moroni Pratt, the recorded birth date is December 7, 1844, which fit within this timeframe since Joseph was martyred in June of that same year. After learning of Brodie's reference I agreed to look into this case since I already knew Joseph Smith's Y chromosome profile. The next step was to reconstruct Moroni Pratt's paternal genetic profile and then compare it to the data we already had for Joseph. The first person I tested was the individual who called me since he was a direct male descendant of Moroni. With his help and looking at some public directories, I identified another descendant of Moroni Pratt through a second son so that we would have at least two independent lines represented in this study and have Moroni as their MRCA. Again, the objective here is to avoid the milkman syndrome, or in other words exclude any possible non-documented instances of NPEs. The goal is to know for sure. If I had tested only one line, but something happened in any of these generations, the DNA results would have been misleading. The two Pratt individuals tested had identical Y chromosome profiles and therefore we know for sure what Moroni Pratt's paternal genetic signature looks like. By comparing the newly reconstructed Moroni Pratt Y chromosome with the one we already had for Joseph Smith Jr. we were able to finally answer a family history question that had been perpetuated for the past century and a half."

See, John, with over 150 years of rantings and attacks on the LDS people and Joseph Smith by individuals who come from positions of extreme bias (as you yourself admit to) there is a literal ocean of misinformation that is drowning out the reality of who Joseph Smith is. So if you are seriously interested in the truth of who Joseph Smith is you must be prepared to accept that he isn't what your predetermined opinion of him is. On the issue of polygamy or the practice of plural marriage I won't argue that Joseph did not engage in temple marriage to others (even others under the age of 18 which at the time was both legal and commonly held as appropriate based on cultural norms). But those who wish to use this information in unfairly critical or biased ways will miss the truth behind the context and simply perpetuate the misleading myths that make true research all the more difficult. As has been said, ""Cynics don't contribute."

FAIR LDS has an excellent article on Smith's possible temple marriages, Todd Compton writes;

"...historians [do] not hold this view; he criticized the anti-Mormons Jerald and Sandra Tanner for using his book to argue for sexual relations, and wrote: "The Tanners made great mileage out of Joseph Smith's marriage to his youngest wife, Helen Mar Kimball. However, they failed to mention that I wrote that there is absolutely no evidence that there was any sexuality in the marriage, and I suggest that, following later practice in Utah, there may have been no sexuality. (p. 638) All the evidence points to this marriage as a primarily dynastic marriage."

He goes on to write,

"Critics who assume plural marriage "is all about sex" may be basing their opinion on their own cultural biases and assumptions, rather than upon the actual motives of Church members who participated in the practice."

Thank you John for providing a new opportunity to re-explore the debatable and questionable topic here surrounding Joseph's having more than one wife (with whom he shared intimate relations). I suggest a re-investigation into the present wording and "information" included in this article on that topic based on some of these new findings and their evidence into Brodie's flawed argument.

Canadiandy1 (talk) 18:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

To help start the improvement I propose the following inclusion to help balance out the article;

From: "Smith himself married approximately thirty to forty women, and his plural marriages included polyandry: several of his plural wives were already married to other men.[302]"

To: "Smith himself married approximately thirty to forty women, and his plural marriages included polyandry: several of his plural wives were already married to other men.[302] Some historians have suggested these marriages were not intimate in nature and were in essence only dynastic marriages for the purposes of uniting families into the eternities." (Todd Compton, In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City, Utah: Signature Books, 1997), 1.)

Canadiandy1 (talk) 18:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

Oh one further change,

Under the Family section which focuses most on Mormon polygamy it states that "Anyone taught this principle had a duty to practice it or be danged." That is actually quite misleading without a disclaimer. The LDS definition of damnation is not reflective of the common image of damnation (i.e. going to Hell to be one of Satan's minions...). The LDS definition of damnation (according to their scriptures) is simply stated, "Damnation is the opposite of salvation, and exists in varying degrees. All who do not obtain the fullness of celestial exaltation will to some degree be limited in their progress and privileges." (Bible Dictionary, LDS Scriptures).

I propose we make the following change to express the confusion on what Smith meant by damnation to read,"Anyone taught this principle had a duty to practice it or they would be limited in their eternal progress and privileges and not receive of the fullness of celestial exaltation."

Canadiandy1 (talk) 19:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

Your position is a minority one, Canadiandy1, one that would have astounded the late nineteenth century Church, which sought out Smith's former wives and gathered many of the affidavits that Compton uses to good effect in his book. How do you explain this sentence from Compton? "These data suggest that sexual attraction was an important part of the motivation for Smith's polygamy. In fact, the command to multiply and replenish the earth was part of the polygamy theology, so non-sexual marriage was generally not in the polygamous program, as Smith taught it." (11-12)--John Foxe (talk) 20:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

My position is a minority one? As I understand it, Noah entered the ark in the minority, but he left it in the majority. Do you mean my "minority" opinion that these marriages were merely dynastic in nature. I'm far more interested in the truth than the opinion of the masses. And what DNA evidence exists proving offspring? On the statment you found of Compton's, yes, FAIR LDS agrees that many reviewers of Compton's work do not agree with all of his conclusions, even though he has collected much useful data. His problem in this instance is that he has based this particular theory on the fact that there is a slightly higher percentage of younger individuals when compared to the percentage of older individuals. This is merely theoretical and speculative and could easily be explained by such issues as simple coincidence based on the small numbers (29-35) or lower mortality rates. Still, the opinion, (minority or not) is substantive enough to demand inclusion in the section.

Canadiandy1 (talk) 01:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

Except for Foxe's input I am not seeing any other concerns with the above changes. I'll look to make these fixes tomorrow (i.e. opposing position re: intimacy, rewording of damnation to reflect Smith's contextual meaning of 'damnation'). Canadiandy1 (talk) 01:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

I don't understand how you could cite Compton in evidence that Smith did not have sexual relations with his plural wives when Compton says the reverse—and the LDS church collected the affidavits to prove it. And as for "damnation," I think your interpretations are anachronistic, based on the current teachings of the Church rather than those of Joseph Smith. I doubt even Mormon scholars are clear about what Joseph Smith believed about damnation. As Douglas Davies notes, 2 Nephi employs a "standard Christian" notion of hell. (49)--John Foxe (talk) 02:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

On that last issue, I think Canadiandy1's point is that by the 1840s, the Mormon understanding of damnation/hell had changed from the traditional view reflected in the Book of Mormon, and I think that's accurate. The only thing is, there's a second concept of Mormon damnation/hell, which means becoming a "son of perdition". So there is the potential for confusion. COGDEN 03:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I stand corrected, COGDEN. Never having been a Mormon, I always feel uneasy about making pronouncements on LDS theology because I'm painfully aware that in that subject there always seem to be wheels within wheels.--John Foxe (talk) 10:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

This section is WP:TLDR, but Canadiandy, are you implying you will make the changes you suggested less than 24 hours ago, despite objections being raised? If that's the case, why not just plow through with your changes before waiting for consensus, which you clearly haven't received. tedder (talk) 06:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Tedder. I recognized this may have been a little long and so I had included a summary in the post suggesting change which stated, "opposing position re: intimacy, rewording of damnation to reflect Smith's contextual meaning of 'damnation'." Are you intending sarcasm when you write "why not just plow through with your changes before waiting for consensus, which you clearly haven't received?" I was trying to give people a chance to respond rather than go through the past precedence here where someone posts, someone reverts the edits, and then everyone gets frustrated. Am I missing something here?

Again, the two simple changes I would like to make are to offer an opposing position relating to the nature of Joseph Smith's recorded Temple Marriages (i.e. dynastic in nature), and a rewrite to reflect Joseph Smith's explanation of 'damnation' which differed greatly from traditional definitions of the term (i.e. limitation of eternal progress and not eternal hellfire, brimstone, and delegation to eternal Wikipedia posting (smiles).

Canadiandy1 (talk) 03:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

I've added citations and some footnote quotations to the sentence about Smith's sexual relationships with his wives. As I said earlier, we Wikipedia editors are not authorities. Statements included here must be cited and are best acquired from peer-reviewed publications such as Compton's book.--John Foxe (talk) 19:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the possible temple marriage of Sylvia Sessions Lyon, (the reference you have used to support Compton's debatable assumption), Kathryn Daynes in "More Wives than One: Transformation of the Mormon Marriage System,(1840-1910)" (University of Illinois Press, 2001)writes that the story is: " ... second-hand evidence based on what Fisher thought she heard from her mother. More problematic is whether there is a discrepancy between what Fisher understood and what her mother meant. That is, did Fisher interpret her mother's remarks to mean that she was the biological daughter of Joseph Smith and thus state that with more certitude than was warranted, when in fact her mother meant only that in the hereafter Fisher would belong to Joseph Smith's family through Session's sealing to him. Because Sessions was on her deathbed, when one's thoughts naturally turn to the hereafter, the latter is a reasonable explanation."

John, given the arguments on both sides of this debate and the lack of any reliable physical proof (i.e. DNA which would be easily found given the large claim you make) it is not acceptable for this article to state that most, some, or even any of Smith's marriages are known to have been intimate. The wording should reflect this. I have reworded this sentence to identify the disagreements among historians. I have also added footnote quotations to Daynes article.

99.199.139.154 (talk) 07:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

I've eliminated the reference to Lyon and added a quotation from Daynes, which provides additional confirmation of the sexuality of Smith's marriages. Compton is an authority in this matter; if you disbelieve him, you must find another authority that disputes his opinion. Daynes does not.--John Foxe (talk) 11:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

John,

You wrote that you included: "a quotation from Daynes, which provides additional confirmation of the sexuality of Smith's marriages." Sorry, but quotes do not "confirm" truth, evidence does. Again, the quotations you have presented on your side of the debate are all clearly debatable and remain open to review and debate. I recognize that a secondary source can be more reliable than a primary source, but that does not mean that the fact that a source is secondary makes it more reliable than a primary source.

So, given the fact that a large number of supports exist for both sides of this issue, and given the lack of any DNA proof supporting intimacies in claimed temple marriages to Joseph, this item should avoid any conclusion or supposition. We're getting close, so I hope my tweaking of the wording is acceptable by all.

99.199.139.154 (talk) 03:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

I don't think that this is a "debate". The scholarly consensus is that Smith's marriages, in general, included sex. The lack of proven descendants does not prove lack of sex. I understand that there is a small minority within the Community of Christ who still think Smith's marriages were some kind of chaste arrangements of a completely different character from other Mormon polygamous marriages, but that's really a fringe theory. It's possible, and a few scholars have speculated, that Smith's marriages to a couple of post-menopausal women might have been purely dynastic and sexless, but nobody thinks that was the rule, in part because that kind of arrangement is a bit anathemic to the whole stated purpose of plural marriage, which was to raise up posterity to achieve a greater exaltation in the afterlife. (Not that that was the only purpose, because Smith never taught that the only purpose of sex was procreation.) COGDEN 03:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Canadiandy1, what bothers me is the essential dishonesty of the reasoning that you've attempted here. I don't think you're personally dishonest—in fact, you seem like a decent chap—but twice now you've tried to use as evidence the authority of experts who never said what you implied they said. And when you've been checked, you've gone the post-modernist route and argued that we can't know truth anyway, that everything about Smith's marriages is "open to review and debate." You will be justly peeved when your kids use this tactic on you.--John Foxe (talk) 11:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

John, you wrote that, "The scholarly consensus is that Smith's marriages, in general, included sex." First, where is this "consensus" quantified? Is this one of those 87.34% of statistics that are made up on the spot?

Might I suggest that the scholarly consensus 'WAS' that Smith's marriages are as you claim sexual in nature. But most of these findings are based on years old "evidences" and writings. New methods for evidencing are far more reliable. If these marriages included intimacy, and there are, as has been proposed, over 30 of these marriages, common sense suggests there would be at least one which could be proven by DNA. Genealogical research and DNA profiling are improving and neither support this "intimate" theory. The reality is that the more light that is shone on these claimed marriages the less reliable your argument becomes. So when you argue that scholarly consensus makes it so, I call unreliable evidence.

As it seems, your argument is quite cyclical. It seems to follow the following cycle;

1. Brodie and other Joseph Smith critics find a historical quote by one of Joseph Smith's enemies. 2. They repeat it frequently and then quote each other repetitively. 3. Modern Smith critics point to the massive quantity of writings supporting their critical view. 4. John Foxe rehashes it all here, identifies all inflammatory evidence as "prominent and scholarly." 5. And discussion contradicting Smith's detractors is met with cries of bias and being un-scholarly. 6. A new "historical fact" is tossed into the mix and the cycle begins again.

Interesting too, I learned this past week that Bushman wishes he would have never published his writings on Joseph because he had no idea how unfairly the Anti-LDS movement would manipulate his findings.

The only contributors to refute my position are John Foxe and COgden, both contributors who have shown biases against Joseph Smith. COgden, I really find your attempt to dismiss my position which is supported by the writings of several respected researchers by calling the theory a "fringe" theory undignified and manipulative.

I would be interested in input from the center here. Again, I will try to rephrase this in a way which is neutrally fair to this highly debatable issue.

99.199.139.154 (talk) 03:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

I suspect you won't find anyone you consider "center" that opposes your viewpoint. However, it appears the WP:SYNTH argument of "no kids have been proven via DNA, so no sex" is even more specious. It implies that all offspring have been tested for DNA, that pregnancy always follows sex, etc.

So, why even say something about intercourse? Just leave it at marriage. Any mention of sex or no sex is questionable at best. tedder (talk) 04:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Tedder,

I too recognize that intimacy does not of necessity lead to conception. My point is more along the lines of shining light on the validity of past research and "scholarly consensus." First, the statement has been bantered about that 'most' of Smith's marriages were sexual in nature. If this is to be accepted, and it is also to be accepted that he was married over 40 times, clearly the likelihood of pregnancy would be expected. But not a single physical proof of such exists. Second, in every situation where individuals have claimed ancestry to Joseph through anyone but Emma, DNA has failed to support the claim. And with the increasing number of these claims made and then disproved, it should serve to reinforce the integrity of Joseph Smith's own claims and throw the arguments of his detractors into greater disrepute. So, in short, DNA evidence should at least lead scholars to re-investigate the vast quantity of inflammatory claims which have arisen from a vein of research which has been based on elevated levels of cynicism, and predominantly motivated by a disregard for Joseph Smith himself.

I agree with you that the discussion about sex or no sex is questionable at best. It seems that it is the detractors of Smith that like to present that one as it can really throw a haze over the history of Joseph. I suspect Britannica didn't focus on it for the same reason. Confusing, polarizing, and useful only for shock value.

So, as I shine the flashlight on this monster under the bed, I'm seeing nothing but a few dust bunnies. Hope this helps us all sleep better at night,

99.199.139.154 (talk) 06:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

In this particular instance, I tend to agree. All this is within the "teachings" section of this article, and Smith's sex life is not really germane to his teachings. We need to reframe this to be about what he taught. And let me just remind Canadiandy of the Wikipedia policy to avoid personal attacks. COGDEN 05:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me? What personal attacks?

99.199.139.154 (talk) 01:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

The bits attacking editors because of supposed personal bias against Joseph Smith. It's improper. COGDEN 08:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I never "attack[ed]" anyone based on their bias, John Foxe is quite open about his bias against Joseph Smith which is more than fair. I apologize if I suggested you have a personal bias against Joseph Smith. I am only basing my position on the tone and positions you have taken in defending some quite cynical positions against Smith. I would never attempt to suggest I know your motivations or POV in real life, but the positions evident in your contributions here are, I believe, fair game. As is your right to refer to my position with such a belittling term as "fringe."

99.199.139.154 (talk) 02:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

You are incorrect if you think attacking editors on the basis of supposed bias (particularly when it touches personal religious beliefs) is fair game. Please take a look at the WP:NPA policy. Keep it about the content, not the editors. COGDEN 08:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Not going here anymore. Still not sure what you mean by 'attack' but I equally resent having my perspective referred to as "fringe." Let's move on please. 99.199.139.154 (talk) 06:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

I agree that it's not necessary to discuss Smith's personal life in this section. Still, with Smith and polygamy, there's no better illustration of the phrase "ideas have consequences" and its mirror image "consequences beget ideas." (So Rousseau gives away his children to a public orphanage and then originates a philosophy of education to justify it.)--John Foxe (talk) 14:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Article looks a lot more fair now, thanks. I have added one last (I hope) tweak to the section. The quote about "damnation" seems to suggest individuals who did not participate in polygamy were 'damned.' I doubt that is its true meaning. I suspect the intent of the quote reflected the need of individuals to enter into Mormon Marriage regardless of it being either monogamous/polygamous. Even if the quote bears out relevant to polygamy only, (please include the full section for review) it seems worded in such a way to suggest its relevance only to individuals after they had entered into temple marriage (i.e. faithfulness to the covenant itself and not to whether they chose to marry a second time).

99.199.139.154 (talk) 05:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

One other tweak, I tried to add something about the likely motive for Joseph's secrecy surrounding plural marriage, clearly his motivation was substantially linked to the safety of the Saints as there was incredible hatred towards the Mormons of the time. 99.199.139.154 (talk) 19:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

Please don't add anything about what you think is likely, we call that original research, see WP:OR. And the way you are adding it makes it look as though it's in the cited source. Dougweller (talk) 19:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

There are sources we can cite for Smith's motives (i.e., Bushman), but the sources give a quite different reason: Smith kept polygamy secret mainly because he was afraid if he revealed it widely, his followers would leave the church. Because of lack of space, however, I don't think this article is the place to explore what has been written about Smith's internal debate. COGDEN 21:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe my edit read: "Smith taught and practiced this doctrine secretly but [during a time of heated hostility toward the Church] he publicly denied it." Adding the edit does not imply necessarily Smith's motivation, but does allow the reader to make a more informed judgment as to Smith's motivation based on historical context. Please return the original edit, unless you disagree with the fact that the LDS at the time were facing hostilities and wish to discuss that here. I would accept a change from 'heated hostilities' to 'public hostilities.'

99.199.139.154 (talk) 05:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

Smith denied polygamy even when the church was experiencing pretty good PR, and was not in danger of mobs or violence, such as in 1835 and 1842. So I don't think this theory is supported either logically or by the sources. COGDEN 05:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

We can't put together stuff from different sources to make an argument anyway, that's synthesis. Canadiandy, you need to read WP:OR carefully. And why are you editing from an IP address? Dougweller (talk) 10:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

If you would, please provide evidence to support your argument, COgden. You will need to back up with reliable evidence that there was a meaningful period of time when;

A: Joseph Smith was known to have entered into plural marriages B: He denied these marriages publicly, and C: There were no hostilities toward the Church

From my reading 1842 was a very heated political time for the Mormons. Perhaps you are misled by the historical fact that these were 'relatively' peaceful times when compared to certain other periods, but that does not mean the times were peaceful or lacking in contention. I would contend that if Joseph Smith were practicing or teaching polygamy, and he knew that such teaching would be peacefully accepted, there would be no logical reason for him to have denied the fact. In the meantime we are left only with the argument that we need to avoid synthesis. I was merely editing as I did above to connect the historical context and make the article more readable. I would gladly add this as an opposing viewpoint in an independent sentence if there's consensus.

Dougweller, you asked why I was writing from an IP address. I assume you mean why is my user not logged onto each item. There, I plead guilty. I am between three computers when I write and am not always logged in. I'll try to do better in the future. Is there any suspicion out there based on my comments?

Canadiandy1 (talk) 08:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

By 1835, Smith had a plural relationship with Fannie Alger. That same year, the church publicly denied rumors and even canonized a proclamation denying polygamy, which Smith approved for publication in the Doctrine and Covenants. Yet in 1835, the church was not subject to mob violence. There had been Mormon-on-Mormon violence in Ohio in 1832, anti-Mormon violence in Missouri (but not Ohio) in 1833-34, and there was almost Mormon-on-Mormon violence in Ohio again in late 1837, but 1835-36 were good years. Brodie said, "At no time in Joseph Smith's career was he more at peace with the world than in the three years following the march of Zion's camp" (i.e., 1834). (Brodie, p. 165).

In 1842, Smith had already been accumulating wives for at least a year, Since 1839, "the press all over the country was sympathizing with the Saints" (Brodie, 259). In January 1842, the church was still getting "extraordinarily good publicity" (Brodie, 270), and in the spring of 1842, Smith was receiving a "barrage of favorable newspaper publicity" (Brodie, 284). It was not until 1843 that the Illinoisans started strongly turning against the Mormons (Bushman, p. 508). There were no mobs forming in the spring of 1842, or any reason to expect them to form in the near future. In fact, other religions had openly practiced polygamy, and no mobs rose up against them. Yet in the April 1842 general conference, Smith took the stand and denied rumors he was practicing polygamy (Brodie 307-08).

So the theory that Smith denied plural marriage during a time of "heated hostility" doesn't hold up, because 1835 and 1842 were not times of "heated hostility". You could maybe make that argument as to June 1844, but he had already denied polygamy several times by then. There are many reasons given why Smith denied polygamy that have nothing to do with anti-Mormon hostilities. Bushman, for example, argues that Smith didn't want to wreck his marriage, alienate his followers, or jeopardize his Zion project (p. 428). COGDEN 11:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

COgden,

You yourself admit in your reference that there "had been Mormon-on-Mormon violence in Ohio in 1832, anti-Mormon violence in Missouri (but not Ohio) in 1833-34, and there was almost Mormon-on-Mormon violence in Ohio again in late 1837, but 1835-36 were good years." So let's say the neighbor kid broke into my house two years ago, and then again last year. Now he hasn't broken into my house for over 6 months. Does that mean I stop locking the doors when I go out? In fact, anyone who did we would think a fool. Perhaps the reason the Saints had peace was because of Joseph's wisdom and visionary foresight in keeping sensitive topics quiet. It is only with hindsight we can identify 1835 as a peaceful year, but a good leader like Smith would always be cautious in the culturally and politically volatile regions in which he and the Saints were living.

You then quoted Brodie (gotta believe it if it came from Brodie) as stating "At no time in Joseph Smith's career was he more at peace with the world than in the three years following the march of Zion's camp." Please note her wording. It suggests Smith being at peace with the world, not the world being at peace with Smith. Just because Smith was a forgiving and well grounded individual does not mean he necessarily trusted his enemies and critics.

Your argument is well referenced (in spite of relying on Brodie) and I appreciate the effort, but it seems quite flawed based on your own evidence. I still maintain the previous hostilities towards the early saints is a key factor in why Smith maintained secrecy or kept private highly topics such as these early marriages. For this reason there should be some mention made of it in the section someone previously removed my revisions from.

So, based on the feedback I've received I have added an improved edit with the context in its own sentence and with its own reference. I even added the word 'possibly' instead of 'likely' to show respect to the breadth of opinion here in discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiandy1 (talk • contribs) 04:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Canadiandy1 (talk) 04:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

Why even include the reason for secrecy if it isn't given in reliable sources? It becomes WP:SYNTH to make guesses to the reasons. tedder (talk) 04:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Looks like Routerone has legitimate claims to censorship. I had wanted to add a second source and tweak the original but it was gone in under 5 minutes. Real annoying and greatly unappreciated.

The quote I wanted to add was to the simple statement sentence presenting the possibility Smith maintained privacy on the topic because of a perceived threat. The secondary reference was from Sarah M. Kimball in 1842 which reads, "He [Joseph] said in teaching this [polygamy] he realized that he jeopardized his life; but God had revealed it to him many years before as a privilege with a blessing, now God had revealed it again and instructed him to teach it with commandment as the Church could travel (progress) no farther without the introduction of this principle."

May I ask who it is that is performing these instant reverts? Personally, I find it bad form. My edit was not earth-shatteringly out of step with this article. And when removed in the past (which removal I just took as par for the course and tried to respect) I would simply try to improve the edit and move on. If I was to 'Instant-Revert' everything I disagreed with I'd scrub the whole thing and start new. But in good faith I don't. In good faith I stick around and work my guts out to try and improve this very negatively focused article one fact at a time (which is what I was told to do instead of complaining). In good faith I accept the opinion and sensitivities of a broad society of contributors.

Reminds me of a lyric from the band "The Clash." You have the right to free speech/So long as you don't actually try to use it."

No wonder you folks have angered Routerone. So much for olive branches, eh?

Canadiandy1 (talk) 05:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

You know you can look at the page history, right? Also, the addition was removed per the theory of the bold, revert, discuss cycle. I gave my concern before you posted it, which you haven't replied to as far as I can tell. It's somewhat hard to tell because you don't indent replies, and your two posts after my post, timewise, aren't both below my comment. In fact, you inserted one into a previous statement you made. tedder (talk) 05:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Canadiandy, you've been told that what you are doing is WP:SYNTH. Have you read our policy on original research? There's no censorship here, there is simply an attempt to make sure that this article follows our policies and guidelines. And there is no free speech on Wikipedia - as WP:Free says,"Although we welcome all constructive contributors, editing Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right. There is no legal right to edit Wikipedia." There's no censorship, thus we have illustrated articles on, for instance, autofellatio. But you have to follow our policies, these are fundamental.

And please follow our guidelines on the use of talk pages. Indent your edits, keep them chronological, don't change an edit you made, start a new one, although if you've changed your mind about something you wrote you can strike it out. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 06:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

So explain to me if I get this right. If I have a concern about the horribly offensive tone of this article I need to spend days and days researching and drafting improvements. Then, I need to spend days apologizing for my religious background as that makes me 'biased.' Then I need to remember that while we need to treat each other in good faith, a greatly revered leader of my faith is afforded none. Now after I have suggested a one sentence revision I get to sit back while anti-Mormon critics attack my input. Then, when I finally realize that the only way things are done is by "senior editors" making changes (who voted for these people?) I try to post an edit only to have it 'Instant-reverted.' Finally, when I express my frustration over the reversion I get 'Wiki-Lectured' about my failure to use indents.

This is, in my mind, far more a matter of elitism than it is of scholarly, peer-reviewed editing. You know, you don't have to be in Who's Who to know what's what. This is bad form no matter how many time you put the word Wiki in front of it.

Tilde tilde tilde tilde logged in and autosigned by my pet sinebot --> Canadiandy (chat) small spic and span spinach (UTC)

Canadiandy1 (talk) 04:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

I'm sorry you're frustrated, Canadiandy1. Neutral point of view takes precedence over personal opinion. I suspect your point of view and faith is clouding your ability to look at this issue from a critical and neutral point of view. If you want to participate in a "faith promoting" wiki, en.fairmormon.org does a good job at that. I don't mean that in a condescending way- they do a truly admirable job of presenting things from a faith-promoting point of view without watering it down. tedder (talk) 04:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

1. I never tried to push personal opinion, I was trying to push fair and balanced article. I figure Joseph Smith was a brave and willing martyr for his faith and religion. But recognizing not all will share my opinion I am more than comfortable accepting him as the victim of mob violence (murdered not assassinated). Don't confuse my passion for seeing balance in this article with misguided religious zeal. I attended University for seven years where I learned very well how to suppress my religious beliefs so that I could actually pass my classes. Seems the only thing University Profs and Evangelicals can agree on these days is that they hate religious intolerance almost as much as they hate Mormons.

2. My point of view and faith have done more to clarify this issue as I did not just bow down at the altar of elitist scholar-critics, but chose to look at the other side of the issue as well, showing Joseph Smith a little of that good faith we would all want if our life was scrutinized by our enemies. I actually approached this topic from the viewpoint that maybe Joseph isn't an evil, self-gratifying, pervert (the premise upon which this article seems to form itself).

3. I don't need a "faith-promoting wiki." My concern is that many individuals who are looking for some basic insight into the life of Joseph Smith would likely do a Google or Wiki search. And of all the worst articles out there to give a fair overall impression of who Joseph Smith was and what he stood for, this is it. I have already used fairlds as a resource to offset the strong anti-Mormon bias here. In fact, it is an excellent source for figuring out why the references and sources used here are so often misleading and even downright deceptive. Think Brodie, readily discredited by historians across the board but held in high regard here as a "prominent' source. Or Bushman, the token Mormon who is horrified by the way his research has been distorted and used against Joseph Smith.

So, no, I will not go away because the big boys here get to make the rules. And no, I will not be intimidated by Wikispeak and the Old Boys Club mentality protecting the article. And yes, I will be sticking around to call out the article and any contributions which are insensitive, inaccurate, intolerant, and inane. Because maybe, just maybe, there is someone out there reading this article today who thinks to themselves, gee, this doesn't jive with the other things I have heard and read about Joseph Smith. And, maybe, just maybe, they will have the wisdom to check the discussion page to see who is printing this "fringe" anti-Mormon tabloid lit. And hopefully they will see that there is someone standing up to say, this is wrong, mean-spirited, biased, unfair, and an undignified attack article hidden in the robes of "research."

So, don't count on me anymore to try and "Help improve" the article. Your WikiKarma has just run over my WikiDogma. I would be embarrassed to know (as is Bushman) that my input helped sustain such cynical writing. But do count on me to stick around to call out the unfairness, the manipulation, the elitist control, and the simple fact that about the only thing this article gets right is the spelling of 'Smith.' Hmmm, or is it spelled with an 'e.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiandy1 (talk • contribs) 05:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Going back to the specific issues, Sarah Kimball's quote, at most, shows that Smith was afraid for his own life if he admitted he practiced polygamy (maybe from the angry fathers and husbands of some of the women he was pursuing?). It's not support for the idea that he denied polygamy only during times of anti-Mormon hostility, which is not true. But I think the biggest issue here is that you are trying to focus on just one possible speculative reason for the denial, the sources list numerous speculative reasons. If we include one, we ought to include them all, and we don't have space for them all in this summary article. And it's not really that important. COGDEN 06:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

COgden

"Angry fathers and husbands of some of the women he was pursuing?" Again, you feel fine suggesting motivation but then you attack anyone who does so when you disagree. From my reading Smith participated reluctantly and only after an internal struggle based on the cultural Puritan/Victorian upbringing of the time and locale. You do Joseph a great disrespect parading the notion he "pursued" these women. And my argument stands that regardless of whether the experience of the Saints was higher or lower on the threat scale, polygamy was always a catalyst for anger and potential violence. This argument is not just speculative, it is valid based on the references I presented. Others are welcome to argue other explanations, but I am of the supported belief that Joseph kept his marriages out of the public eye during a time when such a topic was highly volatile. Draw the connection if you will, the context is obvious. But don't expect me to return to the editing of the article. This mess belongs to you and the Old Boys Club (no attack at individuals, just the collective state) now. At least when I see Brother Joseph again I'll be able tell him I tried to treat his life and history with dignity. But I sure wouldn't feel that comfortable when he asked me about my suggesting he was fearful of the husbands and fathers of the women he "pursued." Not great tact painting him as both a coward and a womanizer in the same sentence. No offense, you are likely just trying to be nice to everybody, but where you seem to be apologizing (as in apologist) for the Church, I'd rather defend it.

Canadiandy1 (talk) 08:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

I hope you will reconsider your decision to quit editing. I think you are reading to much into my use of the word "pursued". He did "pursue" women, in the sense that sometimes he had to do a lot of convincing, and sometimes they refused at first but later relented after considering the heavenly benefits. Nothing wrong with that. That's not a reflection on Smith's character, just a reflection on the fact that he was truly committed to the principle and willing to put his life on the line given that there might be fathers and rival husbands with shotguns. He was not a coward--he was a lot braver than I would ever be. Most Mormons don't see anything wrong with missionaries "pursuing" potential new converts. And that's really what he was doing: pursuing potential converts to the New and Everlasting Covenant. And it wasn't just potential wives: he worked hard to convince male followers like Brigham, Hyrum, and others to join the Covenant. But again, I'm not saying that any of this should make it into the article. This is just one of many reasons why he probably kept the principle secret. I don't even know if that was the main one, or just something in the back of his mind. There are so many speculative reasons why he might have wanted to keep this secret, including the possibility of mob violence, but when you start to include some speculation, you have to include all the major competing speculation. COGDEN 01:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Nah, not interested, thanks. I suspect my presence is only legitimizing this article (i.e. 'We even have Mormons involved in editing this article'). I'm not an apologist, and I won't enable or empower this article until the "Directors of the Board" are replaced with some with a little more respect and tolerance and a little less personal agenda.

Re: speculation. The social norms of the times were greatly insensitive to new doctrine or practices (i.e. polygamy). Such intolerance often led to violence against individuals and groups practicing them. Joseph Smith kept his multiple marriages private and out of public discussion. Where is the speculation? Why is everyone so uptight about placing these two truths together and letting the readers form their own speculation? As it stands the subtle speculation reads that Joseph Smith was merely a manipulative liar. If that one gets to stand, I don't see why the common one I have identified wouldn't. Looks like the only biases accepted here are the ones that trash Joseph Smith.

Canadiandy1 (talk) 04:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

The problem is not that it's speculation. It's (1) that there is a lot of speculation in the literature, and we don't have space to cover all of it, and (2) the original statement that the Smith's denials came during times of "heated hostility" is factually inaccurate and probably not citable to any source. COGDEN 19:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Routerone reversions of John Foxe edits

Routerone has recently reverted strictly stylistic changes that John Foxe has made to the article. So far he has not described what he finds objectionable in them.--John Foxe (talk) 16:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Have you tried talking to him on his chat page? Remember to assume good faith or your complaint looks more like tattling. If it is merely stylistic editing what's the big deal, just explain it here and we'll look at it. Please post the stylistic changes you are talking about? And what's up with referring to yourself in 3rd person? Are there two John Foxes?

99.199.139.154 (talk) 07:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)CanadiandyCanadiandy1 (talk) 08:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

Sorry about the third person. I've been rereading Caesar's Gallic Wars recently. Hope that's an acceptable excuse.

I wanted to provide a space in which Routerone could dispute my stylistic changes if he chose to do so. A little trouble taken early can sometimes head off bigger troubles later on.--John Foxe (talk) 15:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I have to admit, good excuse or not, you get full credit for honesty and originality. I know Routerone has not been very respectful of your edits, but I still think an olive branch might be more effective here than setting loose the legions.

99.199.139.154 (talk) 02:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy Canadiandy1 (talk) 02:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

Wikipedia has rightfully been described as a "cluocracy", if no one defends an editor's controversial actions, then they will be undone. Foxe is usually good at explaining himself; Routerone should at minimum provide an explanatory edit summary when making changes. ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 23:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd defend most of Routerone's "controversial" actions. I respect Routerone's reluctance to provide onerous summaries and his courage to take up the reins of a carriage run wild. Given the filibuster-like realities of the editing process for this article, and with respect for the horrible tone taken against his religious figurehead (and mine) in this article, I figure he should be afforded a little more slack and not tag-teamed so frequently by the establishment here. My only issue with Routerone is his unbridled anger, but I don't blame him in the least for feeling so frustrated and angered. I'm actually surprised at the restraint he has shown under the circumstances.

Canadiandy1 (talk) 04:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

We expect editors to use edit summaries. WP:ES says "It is considered good practice to always provide an edit summary, but it is especially important when reverting the actions of other editors, or if you delete any text; otherwise, people may question your motives for the edit." Summaries aren't onerous, they are restricted to just a few words as they have a limit of 200 characters. Dougweller (talk) 05:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Spelling of 'Smith'

Just wondering, what does Brodie have to say about the spelling of Smith's last name? I am assuming that if Smith spelled it Smith, and he is as untrustworthy as Brodie alludes him to be, it may actually be spelled differently. In fact, perhaps his name is really just an alias and he is actually Sir Francis Bacon.

Thoughts?

Canadiandy1 (talk) 05:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

WP:POINT. Brodie's reliability has been discussed before, and surely will be in the future. But this is just facetious, Canadiandy. ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 23:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

If by 'facetious' you mean "light bantering, amusing in tone" I plead guilty. I thought the aim here was WP: Wikilove. It's kind of a Canadian tendency to use a bit of light sarcasm (I don't think my wit would have offended any but serious Francis Bacon fans) which should not be dismissed as disrespectful or undignified. Indeed, this form of humour is a very tactful way to keep tempers in check and maintain courteous dialogue. What do I think? I think the fact Brodie has shown a clear manipulation and bias in her methods suggest she be avoided as a reliable source. I think that the fact that Brodie has been discussed in the past reveals a common concern, and does not excuse avoiding the topic. I think that the work of FAIRLDS brings to light regularly flaws in Brodie's position and research that actually increase the relevance of revisiting her credibility. That does not mean some of her evidences are not accurate, but in these cases the original evidence should be used instead of Brodie's reference to it.

Canadiandy1 (talk) 02:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

Whatever is written about Brodie, she certainly got things wrong. Brodie was certain Oliver Buell, son of alleged polygamous wife Presendia Huntington Buell, was JSJr's, but this has been proven scientifically to be a spurious claim. Best, A Sniper (talk) 17:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

We don't expect reliable sources to always be right, indeed that would be amazing because reliable sources often disagree. If of course you add something from Brodie that has been shown to be wrong by another reliable source, either take it out or add the other source - carefully. I'm not sure what Canadiandy1 means by 'original evidence' but if it's a primary source then there could be problems. Dougweller (talk) 18:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Our job here is not to question Brodie. If some other author, like Bushman, questions Brodie, then we we cite both Brodie and the other author, unless there is a rare modern consensus that something Brodie said is obsolete (which would require more than just one author's disagreement). COGDEN 19:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

It is incredibly clear 'Our' (not my) job is not to question Brodie. I don't think anything has been more apparent in the editing I see here. Of course, I think one of the best titles of a book ever was Hugh Nibley's response to Brodie's manipulations. The awesome title; "No, Ma'am, That's not History."

I also love the excerpt from a non-LDS review of Brodie's book on Thomas Jefferson;

"Two vast things make this book a prodigy—the author's industry, and her ignorance. She regularly treats us to sub-freshman absurdity. Error on this scale, and in this detail, does not come easily. There is a skill involved. And much nerve. As usual, Ms. Brodie has her facts wrong, even before she loads them with unsustainable surmise. ...The same appetites can be more readily gratified by those Hollywood fan magazines, with their wealth of unfounded conjecture on the sex lives of others, from which Ms. Brodie has borrowed her scholarly methods"

Gary Wills, "Uncle Thomas's Cabin," New York Review of Books 21 (18 April 1974): P. 28

I love it. The author actually suggests it takes skill to be so wrong. Yet you suggest it would be; "...a rare modern consensus that something Brodie said is obsolete." May I remind you of Will's words, "As usual, Ms. Brodie has her facts wrong." 'As usual' or 'rare.' Someone seems to be wrong here.

The fact the most "prominent" critic of Joseph Smith is Brodie actually serves as high praise to the honourable life of Joseph Smith. With enemies like that you know you got to be doing something right. So, whatever you do, don't question Brodie. In American terms it's like having the Communist Party endorse your political opponent's campaign. You can't buy that kind of PR.

Canadiandy1 (talk) 03:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

Take the book to WP:RSN and ask if it can be used. I'd say it can be but anything it's used for needs to be attributed to her. Dougweller (talk) 06:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

There's no question. Brodie is a reliable source. It has been the pre-eminent academic source on the life of Joseph Smith since its first edition in 1945. Even Bushman still recognizes her as the pre-eminent source, and I don't think that's false modesty, even though some others might think Bushman has surpassed her. COGDEN 08:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Quoting the No Man Knows My History article:

Although in research and comprehensiveness No Man Knows My History has now been surpassed by Richard Lyman Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2005)—which is more than twice as long as Brodie and makes use of the considerable scholarship amassed during the intervening years—Brodie's biography, written before she drifted into psychohistory, may still be read for its literary excellence and skeptical view of Mormon origins. Even Bushman (who is a respected historian as well as a practicing Mormon) has written that Brodie "shaped the view of the Prophet for half a century. Nothing we have written has challenged her domination. I had hoped my book would displace hers, but at best it will only be a contender in the ring, whereas before she reigned unchallenged." Sixty years after its first publication, Knopf was still selling a thousand copies of No Man Knows My History every year.

--John Foxe (talk) 17:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

You write that that "history" book by Brodie, or as she is otherwise known, "The Mistress of the Iffy Sentence (Cushing Strout, in the Pacific Historical Review, 266)," ...may still be read for its literary excellence and skeptical view of Mormon origins. Even Bushman... has written that Brodie "shaped the view of the Prophet for half a century. Nothing we have written has challenged her domination. I had hoped my book would displace hers, but at best it will only be a contender in the ring, whereas before she reigned unchallenged."

Excellent article. Notice in the quote that:

1. Brodie is best known for literary (not research) excellence. 2. She is not a neutrally-minded researcher, but a skeptic. 3. Bushman never states he agrees with any of her work, only that he recognizes her popularity.

Just wondering, is that quote the one the Brodieites here are using to suggest Bushman respects Brodie's research methods? If so, "I don't think that [quote] means what you think it means."

Canadiandy1 (talk) 02:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

Who are these Brodieites? Name them please or retract what could be seen as a personal attack. Dougweller (talk) 06:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

By 'Brodieites' I mean only those who continue to accept the writings of Brodie as helpful or reliable. What did you think it could have meant? It is not meant in any way as a personal attack, merely for its brevity as the term 'individuals who regularly apologize (as in apologist) for the arguably biased writings of Fawn Brodie' is quite wordy. If you are more comfortable I could change the term to 'Brodieists.'

On another note, I believe this is the third time you have accused me of personal attacks. I will assume you are merely being sensitive and appreciate your concern for others here.

Canadiandy1 (talk) 09:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

Canadiandy1, Regardless of what you think about Brodie (and I must ask, have you read the book or are you just basing this on what polemicists at FARMS say about it?) there's just simply no way that you could disqualify it as a reliable source. It revolutionized Mormon studies in 1945, and for too many years it has been the premier and most popular biography of Joseph Smith. It was the first biography, and one of the first works in general, that was neither anti-Mormon nor hagiographic. It is still quoted in perhaps the majority of academic works about Joseph Smith. It has its flaws, but so does Bushman. Of the two, It's hard to say which of the two is the most "biased". Bushman's "bias" is probably closer to my own bias as a Mormon, but Brodie's naturalistic "bias" corresponds to that of 99.9% of the world population. But bias has nothing to do with reliability. That's not the standard for use in Wikipedia. Moreover, on the vast majority of issues, Bushman and Brodie agree, or at least they don't disagree. COGDEN 06:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

COgden, you write that you must ask me if I have read NMKMH. You know, I've never smoked pot, but I think I'd rather find more reliable sources for guidance on that one than pot smokers. Guess that means I won't have as liberal an outlook as many others here, but I've never professed to be a modern liberal (classical liberal sure but not a progressive liberal). And no, I don't base all my position on what FARMS says, though I do find fairlds quite reliable and scholarly. But I won't hide my bias, and I don't edit either. Just one question, where did you get your 99.9% statistic from? Do you mean to say that Brodie is not Mormon and 99.9% of the population is not Mormon therefore she is reliable? That would be an absurd reliability standard, don't you think? And while Bushman is LDS, that doesn't mean he represents a typical LDS opinion. Even Bushman isn't happy with much of his writing. You may like what he wrote, but I don't think you'd see the same methods or focus used by Jeffrey R. Holland. If you want to balance the piece try balancing Brodie (a self-professed Smith skeptic with an agenda) with Holland (a passionate Smith follower who is trustworthy, scholarly, and respected).

Canadiandy1 (talk) 09:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

It's not acceptable in a discussion about what is a reliable source to label people like this. Although some of it may not be, for me and perhaps others there is an argument here based purely on Wikipedia policy and guidelines, which is no way makes one a supporter of Brodie, Smith, or anyone else - you are calling unnamed people Brodie apologists and I would like you to make it clear who these people are supposed to be. I'd also like to know, yes or no, do you accept that Brodie can be used as a reliable source so long as proper attribution is made? If so, fine, just drop the labelling, if not, I'll take it to WP:RSN if you don't to get outside opinions. Dougweller (talk) 10:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Canadiandy1, let me actually correct that number to 99.8%, which is the percentage of world population that is non-Mormon and therefore has the same skeptical perspective as Fawn Brodie. that number doesn't have anything to do with reliability, because Bushman's perspective has a 0.2% (or less, according to your statements above) constituency, and is still reliable. They are reliable because they are both the kind of sources cited by mainstream authors in the field. Unlike Bushman, Holland is never cited by mainstream academic authors as an authority on Smith. COGDEN 23:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

COgden

Do you really believe everybody in the world who is non-Mormon is skeptical of Joseph Smith? The term for that I believe is stereotyping. What a pessimistic and cynical view of people. Call me naive, but I like to think most people have an inherent good in them (I call it the Light of Christ) that leads them to look at others with respect and courtesy. Are not pre-judging and prejudice synonymous? So in short I would argue most of the world's people are not prejudiced. And my speculation would be that there are less than one percent of the world who are as pre-judging, biased, and cynical as Brodie was towards Joseph Smith. We couldn't disagree more.

Canadiandy1 (talk) 06:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

99.8% of the world population does not believe that Smith was a prophet, and the vast majority of those people have never even thought about Smith, although they hold worldviews that are in most cases incompatible with Smith being God's latter-day mouthpiece. Whether, given the proper circumstances, they would convert to Mormonism is a different question. But it's not stereotyping to observe that 99.8% of the world population does not believe that Smith was a prophet. And how do you know that Brodie's book is "pre-judging, biased, and cynical" toward Smith? Rejecting a book as prejudicial without reading it is a bit ironic. You'd probably be surprised how often she speaks highly of Smith, and how often she disagrees with the anti-Mormon polemics of her time. She does not recognize Smith as a prophet, but it's not an anti-Mormon book. COGDEN 21:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Doug,

No disrespect, but clearly I'd be wasting my time jumping through the hoops you suggest. I am not the first to suggest there seems to be a bit of a firewall around this article. And the other reality is, I don't care anymore how the article stands. In fact, I would rather it be as negative in tone as it is now for the sake most fair-minded readers will sense the treatment is harsh and go elsewhere to find who the real Joseph was. So if it saves us all time, I'll kindly retract the terms 'Brodieite' and 'Brodieist' and simply suggest there is a systemic tendency (which I disagree with) to maintain Brodie as an expert because of tradition, or simply because she was (past tense) viewed as an expert on the subject for many years. For future Doug, I've got a thick skin, but I'm sure your approach to moderating these discussions could turn away some contributors. I recommend stating your support or help advice first, and your criticism second. This should help you build a better relationship with the contributor and actually increase the likelihood of them responding positively to your advice and guidance.

Canadiandy1 (talk) 17:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

Again, a reminder of what Bushman wrote in 2007, "Nothing we have written has challenged [Brodie's] domination. I had hoped my book would displace hers, but at best it will only be a contender in the ring, whereas before she reigned unchallenged."

As for the charge that this article is totally biased or has a "firewall" around it, even the apologetic FAIR critique of it seems to accept all but the most niggling points as “Correct, per cited sources.” In fact, after reading the FAIR critique, a relative of mine told me, "What they accept as accurate is negative enough."--John Foxe (talk) 19:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

My intent is not to question the truths maintained in the article. It is in the selection of 'which' truths are put in and which are left out (or rejected by the systemic firewall). For example, it is critical that the writers here point out Joseph kept his marriages private. But then the truth that polygamy was a highly controversial topic which angered many (and likely led to his murder) is quickly filtered out on the grounds that it is "speculative." I am not concerned with 'the' facts included here it is 'which' facts are included here. Again, if you look at Brodie's syntax, he does not once claim to respect her methods, he only identifies her dominance. I recognize her dominance as much as I do the dominance of Hugo Chavez in his country. Doesn't mean I like the guy, trust him, or think his teachings should be celebrated. And I never said I liked Bushman either. If you are implying I should like his research because we're both Mormons that would be quite condescending. I think his writings, based on their critical tones, are not what I would present to friends wishing to learn about Joseph Smith.

You know, if I wanted to learn about the Jewish people or their leaders, the last place I would go would be their critics. I would first go to them directly, then I would search the writings of people who had studied their leaders from a perspective of neutral academic interest. I think the last places I would go are their critics. It would seem wise that while the PLO and neo-Nazi groups would present facts, they would be presented in a more questionable and less dignified way. But when Joseph Smith's life is reviewed we go first to his most famous, er prominent, critic, then to any Mormons focusing on his weaknesses. Even then, Britannica used those same researchers just as prominently but still came out with a much less cynical article.

Canadiandy1 (talk) 06:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

I realize you're no fan of Bushman. The problem is that without him, you're left with no one who's studied Joseph Smith with "neutral academic interest"—unless you decide that LDS apologists are actually neutral.

I too was emphasizing Brodie's dominance. But one does not remain dominant if his scholarship has been proved shoddy. Despite errors (the common lot of mankind), Brodie's biography of Smith has held up remarkably well. Plus, Bushman at seventy couldn't write the vigorous prose that Brodie managed at thirty.

I don't know why you think popular antagonism toward Smith's polygamy has been ignored in the article. The article makes it clear that because polygamy was such a hot-button issue, Smith lied repeatedly in an attempt to prevent the practice from being discovered and that popular response to his teaching and practice became a significant factor in his murder.

I noticed that you didn't respond to my mention of the FAIR critique. I think the author of that piece is going end up like Balaam, intending to curse the people of God but blessing them instead. It's now possible to brag on the general accuracy of this article by referring to the website of LDS apologists.--John Foxe (talk) 11:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Canadiandy1, your comparison of Brodie with a rabid skin-head is not very apt. While a skin-head is anti-Semetic, Brodie's work is not anti-Mormon, and generally is recognized as a neutral academic treatment. I don't know if you have read any anti-Mormon books, but there is a distinct difference between them and Brodie's book. I agree you can't get a fair view of Smith by reading anti-Mormon literature. But at the same time, you shouldn't expect to read a balanced presentation of Smith in LDS church manuals (though I believe these official works have their place in faith-promoting church services). Works like Brodie and Bushman are what scholars cite in the academic world, because the authors are professional historians, and they have succeeded in presenting a comprehensive treatment of Smith's life without trying to convert you either to Mormonism or Evangelicalism. Both authors have personal views and pet theories, but the vast majority of both Brodie and Bushman is consensus history. COGDEN 21:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

COgden. I am not comparing Brodie with a neo-Nazi. I am merely arguing the absurdity of going to an individual's detractors in an effort to find an unbiased character reference. And from what I have read Brodie is NOT generally recognized as a neutral academic treatment. Prolific, prominent, dominant, influential, even academic perhaps. But neutral, I don't see it.

Canadiandy1 (talk) 02:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

Don't get your point with the FAIR critique. It found a good number of flaws and/or manipulations of facts, coincidentally mostly from COgden and Foxe. It also shows FAIR's reliability by not selecting only the inaccuracies but the accuracies as well. It looks like when FAIR is kind they are reliable, but when they disagree they are biased. Finally, as I wrote above, I do not doubt, as the FAIR article reflects, that 80-90% of the references are accurate. My point is that the manipulation here is in WHICH facts are included and which are excluded. You also point out that without Brodie and Bushman there is no one who's studied Joseph Smith with neutral academic interest. Wow, is that not cause enough to collectively demand investigation and revision of the research. Or is it simply that the LDS have done such a fair and thorough job of the research (research which will be quickly dismissed here because it might show Joseph Smith to be a good and decent man) that fair-minded historians see no need for further work? Again, it's not THE facts here, it's WHICH facts.

Canadiandy1 (talk) 15:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

I'm enthusiastic about the FAIR critique. The author's complaints are inconsequential and mostly focus on what he considers synthesis of information. Certainly the article can be improved—and indeed it has been during the last few weeks—but the critique author lists no missing facts. So which missing facts do you think need to be included, and if neutral academic sources are excluded, from where are we to get them?--John Foxe (talk) 16:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The article has been improved in the last couple weeks? The only improvement is that Joseph, the martyr, went from assassination victim to murder victim. Quote of the day, "Was not Joseph Smith a money digger?" Yes, but it was never a very profitable job for him, as he only got fourteen dollars a month for it. (Joseph Smith's own answer to the question, History of the Church Volume 3, p. 2).

Oh, I see another name being referenced frequently, D.M. Quinn. Another excommunicated Mormon. Nice. Once they get bitter enough with the Church they are willing to mutiny from within (the huge majority of excommunications are the product of adultery or apostasy) they are qualified for 'expert' status here.

Canadiandy1 (talk) 01:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

It seems that if the pro-X and anti-X camps are both somewhat offended by Wikipedia's coverage of X, that helps prove that X is a well-written article. tedder (talk) 22:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Tedder. I don't really see the Anti-X's complaining about the Wikipedia article here, in fact they seem to be the greatest defenders of it (it seems apparent to me why). Even if it were so, your logic is flawed. If the Flat Earth Society and the Round Earth Society both complain equally about a Square Earth article, does that make it reasonable the Square Earth position is correct? Well written, I'll give you. But fair, respectful, religiously tolerant, unbiased? Not a chance.Canadiandy1 (talk) 01:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

If you're missing the complaints, it's just confirmation bias. If you want fair and unbiased information about Wal-Mart, would you ask Wal-Mart and employees of the company? I hope not. Anything used from Wal-Mart or anti-Wal-Mart companies would have to be tempered against the truth. Wal-Mart employees would probably say the flaws are overblown and camped on by anti-Wal-Mart folks.

Of course, it's hard to get people who don't care about Wal-Mart to write an article about it- people who write about it are typically either supporters or detractors. However, both can be helpful, both in tempering POV and especially if they are approaching the article from an academic viewpoint, not to grind axes, promote the company, etc. But this whole thing is just a wall of text. Do you have anything specific to propose? tedder (talk) 02:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

There's one key difference between Wal-Mart and the LDS Church. One is a store chain, the other is an organized religion of individuals whose leaders (dead or alive) ought to be afforded basic sensitivities. In the interest of those who are wanting to put this to bed so we can go back to maintaining the article I will sum up.

1. Brodie (The Mistress of the Iffy Sentence) is disrespected by many Mormon and non-Mormon scholars. 2. That the majority of facts kept here are negative or cynical in focus while there is a plethora of dignified and courteous writings about Joseph Smith leaves this article's neutrality suspect. 3. Conservative Mormon input is quickly dismissed or firewalled here leaving an article which, intended or not, is closer in tone to anti-Mormon writings than other common encyclopedic offerings. 4. Conservative Mormons are likely fine with that as they realize that in the end the mists of error quickly disappear against the rising of a few rays of warm sunshine.

Canadiandy1 (talk) 03:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

And in any case, WP:DR outlines some great avenues to take if this page is really being "firewalled". Rather than lobbing allegations, taking it through the DR processes would be putting your money where your mouth is. tedder (talk) 05:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I feel absolutely no need to "Put my money where my mouth is." Feels like a bit of an attack the way you worded that. Unlike the defenders of this article, I didn't write this, and no one is paying me to sit in that dentist's chair. But I do plan to hold the editors' feet to the firewall here. And don't blame Conservatives Mormons for speaking out about the unfair treatment of Joseph Smith here. They didn't write this. When the editors picked up the stick, they picked up both ends of it. This is not my article, I didn't pick up the stick. But I'll sure warn people about the guy on the loose with a stick.

Canadiandy1 (talk) 16:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

"Money where your mouth is" is an expression, not an attack. What I'm saying is that if you want something to happen with this article, there are established ways to make that happen. If, however, you just want to complain, keep working on it. But wikipedia is not a forum, this talk page should be used for action related to the article, not a place for impassioned speeches with no intent of action. tedder (talk) 16:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Canadiandy1, let me once again return to the FAIR critique, written by an anonymous apologist in defense the position of the LDS Church. Why doesn't that critique complain about the use of Brodie or the "negative or cynical" evidence you complain of. Is it possible that the religious position you're attempting to defend is yours alone and not one actually held by the LDS Church?--John Foxe (talk) 17:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

"Is it possible that the religious position you're attempting to defend is yours alone and not one actually held by the LDS Church?" Bing, bing, bing, bing ... we have a winner ! :) Duke53 | ^Talk 19:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I never suggested the Church had a religious position on Brodie. I recognize I can only speak for myself. And I don't know why the FAIR critique didn't address Brodie's methodology. You'd have to ask the writer that yourself. But now I realize I have to admit defeat here, though, John. It seems that Duke53 is taking your side, so you must be on the right side of the issue.

Canadiandy1 (talk) 01:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

The FAIR critique also doesn't call "the majority of facts...negative or cynical" nor does it complain that the article should use "dignified and courteous writings." It says nothing about conservative Mormon suggestions being "quickly dismissed or firewalled," nor does it complain that this article is closer "in tone to anti-Mormon writings than other common encyclopedic offerings." In your approach, you seem to be taking a line that's more Catholic than the pope—or rather, I should say, more Mormon than the President.--John Foxe (talk) 14:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

You're right there's a lot the FAIR article doesn't mention. No mention is made of Global Warming, the mature contributions of Duke53, or the poor Winter Olympic showing by Russian athletes either. That your neighbor doesn't complain about your noisy dog who 'uses' your lawn, doesn't mean he's happy about it. You are using strange logic here. The same kind of "Iffy" logic Brodie seems to like. It reminds me of the Shel Silverstein poem about a turtle that falls in love with a set of bagpipes. And every time the turtle asks the bagpipes about love/marriage the bagpipes don't say 'no.' In the end the turtle hugs the pipes and the bagpipes say, 'aooogaaah.' Then the turtle gets all depressed and waddles off. Kind of like the way I figure the scholars treat Brodie once they give her book a squeeze.

Canadiandy1 (talk) 15:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

You know, I'm actually going to secede this one. I see now the great reverence contributors here have for the work of Brodie. Upon reflection I see that one of my own concerns is the irreverence shown Joseph Smith here. So to avoid hypocrisy (I apologize for any of it in the past)I will retract my insensitivities towards Brodie. I didn't realize when I began that Brodie had engendered such a loyal following or the high level of passion with which her work is embraced. I merely thought a serious investigation of her work would help others to seek newer sources or writers. You can call it a truce, but either way I surrender the fight. Unless someone wants to take another swipe, I'll let this one go.

Canadiandy1 (talk) 23:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy