Talk:Joseph Smith/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 24

First Vision caption (2)

If you take a look at the various accounts given in the First Vision article, I think you'll see the difficulties involved in identifying the image under discussion with any story Smith told before 1838/39.--John Foxe (talk) 16:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

That's a different argument than "Smith did not recount the First Vision before the late 1830s." But see my analysis immediately below. alanyst 17:07, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I think some concepts are being conflated in the discussion above. There are several issues at play:

• The timing of Smith's recording of the First Vision
• Changes over time to the theology that Smith taught regarding:
  • The distinctiveness of God the Father and Jesus
  • The physical nature of God (spirit only versus having a body of flesh and bone)

I can't see where the First Vision narratives say anything about the physical, tangible nature of God. Certainly it tells of God and Jesus appearing as "personages", and believers have (not unreasonably) inferred that this is evidence that they have physical bodies. But the accounts of the vision don't tell of them interacting with the physical world at all. Unless there is a reliable source that affirmatively states that the First Vision influenced or reflected Smith's theology regarding the physicality of God, it would be synthesis to mention that aspect in a caption of an image depicting the First Vision.

On the other hand, the First Vision quite obviously deals with the question of the distinctiveness and visual appearance of God the Father and Jesus. Thus the image is relevant to that bit of Smith's theology.

When we talk of the timeline of Smith's theology and whether the First Vision timeline is relevant to it, we should be precise about which of these two doctrines is being discussed. If Smith's early teachings affirmed that God did not have a physical body or that nothing had yet been revealed on the subject, this would not be at odds with the First Vision account. If they affirmed that God and Jesus were not distinct beings or that nothing had yet been revealed on the subject, then this would be at odds with the First Vision account. When historians say that Smith's views became less trinitarian over time, are they referring to the distinctiveness question or the physicality question? Quotes from reliable sources, in context, would be helpful to answer this. (On a side note, saying someone's views became less trinitarian over time doesn't mean that they started out with squarely trinitarian views, just as saying that political figure X's views became less conservative over time doesn't mean they started out as a conservative. Let's be careful not to claim that Smith started out teaching trinitarianism if that's not what the reliable sources indicate. Again, the actual language from the reliable sources would be helpful here.)

If Smith's public stance on the distinctiveness question didn't change from the date he claimed the First Vision to have occurred, then the timing issue of the First Vision accounts is not relevant to the theological position. This is why I think the caption should omit language that addresses the timing, and because the physicality question is not known to be addressed by the First Vision, I also oppose mentioning it in the caption. It should simply say that Smith claimed to have seen God the Father and Jesus as distinct personages, which the image nicely illustrates. alanyst 17:07, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Smith did not say that two separate personages appeared to him simultaneously before 1838/39—which is what the image shows. Eliminating the image is possible, but implying that the image represents Smith's views of the Trinity, the physicality of God, or anything else before the late 1830s is misleading.--John Foxe (talk) 18:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

@Alanyst, I agree with your analysis, for the most part. But the issue of the first vision stories changed over time is, in my view, completely irrelevant to the purpose of using this image. I think I was the one who put the image there, and the only reason I did so was to illustrate Smith's late theology. The fact that it shows the first vision is beside the point. You could just as easily substitute any Mormon image of God and Jesus as separate physical men. Thus, if this is really a sticking-point, maybe the solution is just to delete the image, or use a different image. The stained-glass window was created in the 20th century, anyway, and it does reflect Smith's 1838 account (though not his 1840 account) pretty well, but it is by no means a contemporary image.

I agree with your statement that saying that Smith saw the physical bodies of God and Jesus is a synthetic view of Smith's statements. (I believe Orson Pratt was the first to perform that synthesis, soon after Smith died.) But as to your proposal, "Smith claimed to have seen God the Father and Jesus as distinct personages," that really waters down Smith's later theology. Saying that Smith saw God and Jesus as "distinct personages" could almost be compatible with trinitarianism. Even trinitarians believe that God and Jesus are distinct "persons". What makes Smith's theology distinct from trinitarianism is that he believed they had separate, physical bodies. If we have to water down the caption that much, I think there's no point in including the image. COGDEN 20:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

John. You have now twice quoted me when I said I am, "...personally quite comfortable now seeing the negativism so severe here. It actually makes it more likely fair-minded readers will look to sites such as lds.org for more reliable information on the subject." Yep, I still feel that way. And nope, that doesn't mean I am going to support your position. Your logic is confusing on this one. A little thing called ethics stands in my way. That old ends does not justify the means thing. See, I will not bargain or compromise when it comes to truths and principles no matter what the justification. What's wrong is wrong, even if everyone else is doing it. Does it bother me that Joseph Smith is so slandered? Not at all, actually. They said, and are still saying, some pretty nasty things about Christ too. So as I see it, such unfair treatment is to be expected, puts Joseph Smith in with some pretty good company, and in fact was prophesied by Joseph Smith himself. And as to an apology? Nope. 173.180.109.246 (talk) 00:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

Actually, it was three times. If you're content to see negativism here, and it makes "fair-minded readers" turn to apologetic websites, why bother trying to eliminate information in this article that doesn't conform to LDS POV?--John Foxe (talk) 10:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposal: move First Vision image to "impact" section

Here's a possible solution to the First Vision caption issue: What if we move the image to the "impact" section, and change the caption to say something about the impact of the First Vision story on later Latter Day Saints? If we can't use the image as a simple illustration of Smith's later theology, then the "impact" section is a good home for it. The image is an imperfect illustration of Smith's theology, but is a perfect illustration of how modern Mormons view Smith. COGDEN 20:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

An excellent idea since the First Vision is already mentioned in that section.--John Foxe (talk) 21:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Personally I feel the way we mention the First Vision in the impact section is rather tangential. It's like, "oh yeah, and there's also this random factoid that we couldn't squeeze in anywhere else". Also, if we move the image, the "Distinctive views and teachings" section would have no images at all. I'm not opposed to the move; I just wanted to raise these two small concerns. ...comments? ~BFizz 17:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, there is nothing wrong with the image. While stained glass is a little un-LDS (more of a Catholic culture thing) it is one of the rare, if not the only, images that does not look dark, gloomy, muddy, or confusing. I don't blame anyone for the fact, the problem stems from the historic cultural disrespect shown the LDS faith. But I wonder why John Foxe is leading the call to eliminate the image. It is beautiful, bright, relevant, and clear in message. But as it actually might in some minor way portray Joseph Smith in a positive light (pun intended) I anticipate its speedy removal here. No offense intended towards any individual contributors, just an insight relating to the collective bias still prevalent here.

@COgden. While Backman is a published and reviewed professor at an accredited university, I have to remember he bears the unfortunate character flaws of being both LDS 'and' positive towards Joseph Smith's history. If only he had been more critical like Bushman we could use his writings. Sorry if this sounds sarcstic, I commented this way only because I think it is the most poignant way to communicate my frustration with bias against pro-LDS writings. The sarcasm is not intended at you, it is directed towards the climate of bias I think is still present here. 173.180.109.246 (talk) 00:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

COgden, you have a problem with Backman's position. Which of the main points he made do you disagree with? Or is he just wrong because he is LDS?

1. That Smith wrote on at least 4 different occasions.

2. "The four surviving recitals of this theophany were prepared or rendered through different scribes, at different times, from a different perspective, for different purposes and to different audiences."

3. Each of them emphasizes different aspects of his experience

4. In the legal profession, attorneys and judges recognize that if a witness repeats an incident by using precisely the same language, the court might challenge the validity of such a statement.

You know, maybe it is my horrible LDS bias, but I'm having a hard time seeing anything in his points that is not common sense.

In my mind, we should base a researcher's work on its own merits, rather than on what religion the researcher is. 173.180.109.246 (talk) 14:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

Canadiandy, it has nothing to do with Backman's religion (which I share), and everything to do with where Backman publishes his work. If Backman had been able to publish his view in peer reviewed journals, or in mainstream academic fora such as university presses, etc., and if his view wasn't a fringe view, then we could cite him for his apologetic position. But on Wikipedia, we can't cite fringe historical perspectives that may be found only in the Ensign, Deseret Book, or Bookcraft. COGDEN 16:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay. I get it. The belief that Joseph Smith might not have been an evil deviant is a "fringe view." That explains everything. And I was beginning to think it was just me. The question remains, however, which of Backman's points do you disagree with? 173.180.109.246 (talk) 00:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

173, you have hit the nail on the head. Foxe and COgden run roughshod on this article demonstrating a very high degree of ownership. Anything they do not like get reverted or deleted; they are the sole source of "acceptable" references; they are the only ones that know what "acceptable" view is as well as all fringe views. Being a member of the LDS Church does not equate to neutrality and certainly not possessing mainline beliefs, COgden. In fact, membership means nothing.

How in the hell does Widmar become an acceptable, mainline POV? Because you say so? How does anything that remotely is neutral in the article get deleted or changed to reflect, "tweaks" or edits that are too "wordy". You two need to back off the article and quit your violation of ownership polices. -^StormRider 11:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

@Canadiandy, your statement above, and your discussion regarding Backman, are straw men. My Mormon religious views, and whether I agree with Backman, are beside the point. My personal opinion is not citable, and has nothing to do with the caption in question. Plus, the only thing that is a "fringe view" is the idea that Joseph Smith had a secret theology in 1820 that was the same as his 1840s theology. As far as I am aware, no scholar has published this extraordinary hypothesis in a mainstream academic forum. That's not to say the view is necessarily wrong, just that it is apparently unpublishable and therefore "fringe". And this is not me making this rule, this is the policy of WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE.

@Storm, I'm going to ignore the personal mudslinging, except for noting that: (1) I almost never revert edits to this article, and (2) you shouldn't confuse ownership with stewardship. COGDEN 21:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Please be very careful; there is a difference between stewardship and ownership. What you and Foxe are doing is clear demonstration of ownership. Only your edits can stay in the article, only your references are acceptable, and only you two seem to know what is the proper way to word anything. -^StormRider 16:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

@COgden. You are the one who made the point about Backman. I merely quoted him here as some insight into why there is a misunderstanding of the First Vision. I have no idea why you raised the flag that he is an unreliable source. I merely mentioned his name as the quote was his. So please, is there anything he said that you disagree with?

And, that someone (Joseph Smith) knew something and didn't say it does not necessarily imply the keeping of a secret. You don't know what I had for lunch yesterday. Sure I didn't tell you, but it wasn't a secret. The argument that Joseph Smith was keeping a secret because he did not reveal each and every detail of the First Vision to each and every scribe for each and every audience is the rhetorical equivalent to asking if I have stopped beating my wife. So how is it a "Fringe View" to suggest it is common sense that the variation in Joseph Smith's recorded statements on the First Vision are merely the nature of different audiences, and different perspectives? Is it a "Fringe View" that I had a sandwich because I didn't tell you, or because I have never been peer reviewed on the subject of lunch foods?

I mean absolutely no offense. I think you know so much on the subject you are losing sight of the common sense of the matter. That is normal for individuals who focus heavily on one field or topic. Wasn't it Einstein who never wore socks. (Meant as a compliment, Einstein was a great man). I admire your breadth of knowledge on the research, but please, don't lose sight of the forest for the trees.

I don't see why the position that Joseph Smith's "different" comments on the First Vision are because of varied audiences and contexts is any more "fringe" than the position that he was changing his story or evolving a theology. I will gladly respect someone who wishes to postulate it. I think common sense would likewise evidence my position. And since there is likely no irrefutable evidence for either, I am of the position that we leave both out and aim for neutrality on the issue. Thus, we word it such that Joseph Smith "claimed" (N).

Canadiandy1 (talk) 01:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

It is relevant that Backman's Ensign article is not a reliable academic source for the conjecture that the 14 year old Smith had a secret nontrinitarian materialist theology. What isn't relevant is my personal views about Backman's article. In Wikipedia, it's never about who is right or wrong--it's only about what the references say. And nobody, at least yet, has been able to publish the secret theology theory in a general academic forum. If tomorrow somebody discovered Joseph Smith's lost teenage diary, and it amazingly contained his full 1840s theology, then that could change in a heartbeat. But that's not where we are now. COGDEN 03:36, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

COgden. Nobody has ever been able to locate a lost diary revealing Nixon was not a closet homosexual. Therefore Brodie's theory must be accepted as fact (for Wikipedia purposes). She was, after all, not Republican, peer reviewed (although her peers in that field mocked her work), and published.

Reminds me of the Shel Silverstein poem about the turtle that falls in love with a set of bagpipes. Each time he asks if they love him the bagpipes don't say no. 173.180.109.246 (talk) 04:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

Offtopic, but I have a boycat named Sue. tedder (talk) 05:30, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the chuckle Tedder. 173.180.109.246 (talk) 15:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

Wording

A lot of this article seems to take the Mormon beliefs as truth and say that they are absolutely correct. I think the wording needs to be changed to reflect the fact that this is religion and not history, and it is not concrete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.177.141.78 (talk) 20:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Could I introduce you to a fellow editor named Canadiandy?--John Foxe (talk) 20:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Anon, could you please provide examples? As far as I can see, everywhere Mormon belief appears, we always precede it with "Smith said..." or "[Latter Day] Saints believe..." or something to that effect. ...comments? ~BFizz 00:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey "unsigned." Let me introduce myself. I am Canadiandy. Could you be a little more specific? Which specific article are you referring to? If you are suggesting the Joseph Smith Wikipedia article has even an inkling of pro-Mormon bias, then I would refer you to the treatment Joseph Smith receives from Encyclopedia Britannica, which in comparison must be a raving pro-Mormon conspiracy to indoctrinate and brainwash the masses into believing that Mormons actually control the government from inside a secret underground bunker. Sorry for the hyperbole. Or is it hyperbole? Maybe you are the only one who really isn't a Mormon. Or maybe you're just wrong. 173.180.109.246 (talk) 01:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

There, there, let's not bite the newcomers.--John Foxe (talk) 09:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. I was just playing to your tongue-in-cheek "introduction" but I may have gone a little overboard. My "Bite" was not aimed at "unsigned" but at the systemic negative bias still existing in the article. 173.180.109.246 (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

"Wary" of Protestant religions?

First, I had a chance to look at the introductory paragraphs. They are so pointedly negative it is shocking. How do we miss this? In this summation of Joseph Smith, and what is important about him, we witness the following key elements,

He founded a movement, was a polygamist, was “wary” of Protestant churches, was influenced by folk religion, used supernatural powers to find buried treasure, organized a Church of Mormons, oversaw financial collapse, incited insurrection, and was tried on capital charges…

Does anyone believe that’s a fair or neutral snapshot of who Joseph Smith was? The bad apple analogy seems to be holding here.

To start with, I would take issue at least with the statement that Joseph Smith was "wary" of Protestant religions. While he was perhaps cautious about joining in with them, it seems he was actually at one point close to joining the Methodists. He writes "In process of time my mind became somewhat partial to the Methodist sect, and I felt some desire to be united with them; but so great were the confusion and strife among the different denominations, that it was impossible for a person young as I was, and so unacquainted with men and things, to come to any certain conclusion who was bright and who was wrong."

Remember, Joseph Smith wrote, "No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join." Now of course we don't get to trust Joseph Smith's own record, but at least this makes the absolute statement that he was "wary" of Protestant religions debatable at best.

It would best be written that "In his early teens Joseph Smith went through a period of religious interest and investigation of the different Protestant faiths in the hopes of determining which was doctrinally correct."

Canadiandy1 (talk) 05:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiandy1 (talk • contribs)

Not to play devil's advocate, but when were Smith's words written? Have they been edited & re-edited over time? Do these words, when written, jibe with contemporary accounts as found in secondary sources? (meaning: is it something he wrote about as an older gentleman or are there accounts that it took place when he was a teen as he suggests?) This is the standard by which we're all held to. Best, A Sniper (talk) 06:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't expect everybody to accept Joseph Smith's words as the only evidence for this position. But when one considers the fact that his parents raised their children in a Christian home and that his mother a sister and two brothers were Presbyterian, common sense would at best suggest there is no definitive evidence for or against his being "wary" of the Protestant faiths. Combine that with what he recorded about the First Vision, and It seems to me that to accept unquestioningly that Joseph was "wary" of these faiths is a stretch at best. 173.180.109.246 (talk) 06:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

Joseph Smith, Sr. was a drinker and antagonistic to organized religion, and his sons Alvin and Joseph sided with him against their mother in religious matters. Joseph's childhood acquaintances uniformly agreed that Joseph wasn't at all religious in his youth, and he didn't come up with the First Vision until late in the 1830s.--John Foxe (talk) 13:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

John Foxe, you state that "Joseph's childhood acquaintances uniformly agreed that Joseph wasn't at all religious in his youth." All of his "acquaintances"? I notice you didn't refer to them as friends. Your sources please? Did these happen to be from that old reliable source of 'some of the locals who at the time were so fair-minded they ran out members of other religions they didn't agree with by burning their homes?' And what is your point in adding that Joseph Smith Sr. was a drinker? Most people back then were drinkers. What does that have to do with anything? Are you implying people who drink can't be Protestant? Your bias is showing. 173.180.109.246 (talk) 14:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

For comments from Joseph's acquaintances about his early non-interest in religion, see the testimonies gathered in the five volumes of Early Mormon Documents, a fine set of primary sources. Richard Bushman says, "Judging from later accounts by the Smiths' neighbors, Joseph's religious struggles were unknown in the village. The publication of the Book of Mormon surprised everyone. The villagers had no idea that the nondescript farm boy who occasionally appeared in town to buy a paper for his father had any ambition or religious character. He seemed slow and 'destitute of genius' or lazy and superstitious. The townspeople who later recorded their memories thought of the family as treasure-seekers, not eager Christians."(35-36)

As for Joseph Smith, Sr., Bushman writes that he "may have partially abdicated family leadership. 'I have not always set that example before my family that I ought,' he confessed in 1834. Speaking of himself in the third person, he gratefully told Hyrum that 'though he has been out of the way through wine, thou has never forsaken him nor laughed him to scorn.' Joseph Sr.'s drinking was not excessive for that time and place; only two of the hostile affidavits collected in 1833 mentioned it. But he feared his sons' scornful laughter....By the standard measures of success in a rural society, he had failed. Even his dreamy yearning for religion had led to nothing; he felt he had let his children down. 'I have not been diligent in teaching them the commandments of the Lord,' he admitted, 'but have rather manifested a light and trifling mind.' All the boys loved and honored their father, Joseph Jr. particularly, but their affection may have included sympathy for a life blighted by shame."(42)--John Foxe (talk) 16:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding "wary": the article body does a better job of explaining the precise situation, and while it's an important detail of Smith's accounts of the First Vision and visitations from angel Moroni, it's not really critical to the overview of Smith's life. I've edited the detail out of the lede. ...comments? ~BFizz 19:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Because the lede references the influence of folk religion, I think it is also important for completeness to say something about the complementary influence of Protestant Christianity. Whether or not the "wary" phrasing is the best option, i don't know, but I think we should at least note in the lede that he was was interested in the Christian controversies of his day, but skeptical of organized religion. I think the secondary sources thoroughly support that. COGDEN 20:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, BFizz. Thanks, COgden.

@COgden. I would suggest he was not merely interested but intrigued. I still don't see him skeptical of organized religion as much as he was questioning and exploring them. 'Skeptical' has a negative connotation and I believe he was sincerely hopeful he would find the right one. I would suggest perhaps that he was troubled by them and their incongruencies. Canadiandy1 (talk) 23:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

I'm only concerned with secondary sources, not what any of us suppose was in JSJr's head. Perhaps 'wary' isn't the right word. However, I would caution against lifting things directly from some published accounts of 'Joseph's words' as I've seen some that have been sanitized heavily over the years - comparisons between original publications and subsequent editions that remove any references that would paint JSJr in a lesser light. In addition, with the probability that early events were perhaps embellished or altered by the man himself in later years, the current narrative is probably not accurate as physical history. We therefore need to base this on secondary works and not what we supposed JSJr thought as a boy. Best, A Sniper (talk) 23:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree there are limits to knowing what was in Smith's head, but there are some conclusions that the secondary sources draw, based on the entire historical record, which are not controversial. What about something like this:

"Smith was raised in western New York during a period of religious enthusiasm. His family was engaged with and divided by the Christian controversies of his day, but he was not happy with any particular religious tradition. He was also influenced by folk religion, and as a young man was recognized..."

However we express it, I think the secondary sources are in agreement that during his adolescence, Smith was not ultimately happy with any of the Protestant traditions to which he was exposed. The extent, if any, that he purposefully investigated different denominations is unknown (except for Methodism) so I don't think there's any certain theory on that presented by the secondary sources. COGDEN 00:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

There are really two sides to Smith's views of the existing churches. On the one hand, he says that he was told personally by Jesus Christ himself that these other churches were "all wrong" and that their leaders and intellectuals were corrupt. Smith's position then was that the existing churches were all apostate. However, on the other hand, he also said, "Have the Presbyterians any truth? Yes. Have the Baptists, Methodists, etc., any truth? Yes. They all have a little truth mixed with error. We should gather all the good and true principles in the world and treasure them up, or we shall not come out true “Mormons.”" So while avoiding anything in their doctrines which was apostate, he believed in trying to gather what was good and true in all different traditions together, while discarding what was bad and false. Calling Latter Day Saintism a hodgepodge of theologies isn't a criticism but, in some ways, an accurate description. --BenMcLean (talk) 15:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Fanny Alger

Two editors have tried to disguise an important aspect of Joseph Smith's career—his immoral relationship with Fanny Alger. (I have no intention of using the word "immoral" in the article itself, but that's exactly what it was.) My opponents need to explain why they wish to cover up this episode that reflects so negatively on the character of Joseph Smith.--John Foxe (talk) 15:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC).

Tried to disguise? That is ridiculous. Two words, John: undue weight. So now you're talking in terms of immoral and fellow editors as opponents? Time to take a break from editing ;) Best, A Sniper (talk) 16:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

John. You wrote that your "Opponents... wish to cover up this episode." It looks like you are in a negative and unbalanced focus at present. Perhaps a step back for a while. Canadiandy1 (talk) 23:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

No undue weight is given. The episode speaks to the lack of character and untrustworthiness of Joseph Smith. We don't cover up evidence at Wikipedia. As Cowdery said, this was a "dirty, nasty, filthy affair," and it needs to be included—even emphasized in my opinion. I make no apologies. Remove this information and you are not only my opponent but the opponent of the NPOV ideal that Wikipedia stands for.--John Foxe (talk) 18:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

At this point I have personally lost confidence that John Foxe is trying to keep his personal opinions separate from his editing. "Lack of character and untrustworthiness" are personal opinions and efforts to promote them in this article are no more appropriate than efforts to promote an opinion of Smith's integrity and kindness would be. alanyst 18:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Please, John. We all have times when we get too focused or emotional. I think you are doing both your credibility and the article a disservice. Step back, take some time for yourself, and come back when you are at your best. Canadiandy1 (talk) 23:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

Even the current wording is rather odd. He "may have married"? The truth is he either did or he didn't. Probabilistic words like "may" and "chance that" work well when talking about unknowable future events, but don't work as well for disputed (but theoretically knowable) past events. But I can't think of a better way to phrase it at the moment.

Regarding the "immoral relationship with Fanny Alger". Did Smith marry Fanny Alger? Historians generally (but not universally) conclude "yes", based on various primary sources. Did Smith have sexual relations with Fanny Alger? , Bushman notes that Cowdery was the only one to publicly accuse Smith of immoral behavior. So from a Wikipedia standpoint, it seems obvious that we include the "married" detail (where there is at least enough evidence for historians to start asserting a POV) but exclude the "immoral relationship" detail (where historians generally avoid asserting a POV due to lack of evidence). In specialized articles, there is obviously more room to discuss both points.

As a slightly off-topic note, surely Foxe does not propose that we to take everything Cowdery said as the truth? Otherwise we would also have to accept his statement as one of the Three Witnesses, which I'm sure Foxe does not accept. Foxe, you seem very convinced that you know exactly what happened during "the episode", but the truth is, historians are grasping at straws to put the story together. How can such a poorly-evidenced event speak to anything about Smith's character? The original wording casts Cowdery as "one of the few that knew about the relationship", a sort of insider's look into the secret life of Smith. On the other hand, Bushman takes the opposite approach and states he was the "only one who accused"; basically asserting that despite the rumors wildly flying around, no one except Cowdery actually substantiated the claim. Bushman even seems to imply that Cowdery was jumping to conclusions, and had not witnessed anything; that Cowdery believed his own accusations, although he didn't base them on sound evidence. ...comments? ~BFizz 18:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Bushman gives Alger her own subhead and four pages of text. He notes that "her story was recorded as many as sixty years later by witnesses who had strong reason to take sides. Surprisingly, they all agree that Joseph married Fanny Alger as a plural wife." Bushman says that Alger never admitted to the marriage but then he also says she "had no trouble remarrying." My opinion is that Smith's relationship to Alger was exactly what Cowdery said it was, a "dirty, nasty, filthy affair." Obviously I can't prove that on the basis of Cowdery's testimony alone, but it's important to make sure that Smith's unconventional behavior, which reflects on his character and suggests his general untrustworthiness, is clearly delineated in the article.--John Foxe (talk) 20:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

That's just it, Foxe: your opinion (POV) makes no difference. Frankly, I am rather shocked by the tone of your notes - a change recently. I remember someone once speculating that you and Duke53 were in fact the same person - a sort of yin & yang, good cop/bad cop. I thought the very notion silly. But now you seem so dramatic, so OTT. Opponents? Merely because I mentioned undue weight? Perhaps you think you own the article and take it seriously that if it deviates from your own narrative and your own mindset, it can't be tolerated. All we suggested was that the bit be shortened and that the content be shifted to a footnote or another article dealing with polygamy or the founding of the church. Drawing lines in the sand doesn't help anyone, unless you're wanting an admin involved. Best, A Sniper (talk) 23:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm fully aware that my opinion makes little difference in the actual editing of the article. We as editors can't go beyond evidence; and in the nineteenth century, it was uncommon for folks to parade their vices before the public. Nevertheless, I feel morally obligated to let all the regulars here know how I feel about this episode: that regardless of whether Smith considered this dalliance with Alger a "marriage," his affair with her was immoral, it betrayed his wife Emma, and it reflects negatively on his character and trustworthiness. On this issue, I do draw a line in the sand.--John Foxe (talk) 10:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The Fanny Alger issue is certainly a notable element of Smith's history, which is always given prominent treatment in any discussion of plural marriage. The dispute between Smith and Cowdery regarding Alger is also an important reason why Cowdery, who was practically the co-founder of the Latter Day Saint movement, defected from Smith's movement in the late 1830s. Therefore, I don't think we can minimize the issue. But the issue is not whether Smith's relationship with Alger was "immoral". Whether Smith's polygamous practices were moral or immoral is not a question that Wikipedia can answer. The "nasty affair" allegation is only relevant because it was one of the accusations made by Cowdery, and one of the reasons why he left the church. I don't think we necessarily need to quote Cowdery's exact inflammatory language, as long as we note that Cowdery believed Smith's polygamous relationship with Alger was immoral.

Also, while the preponderance of more recent scholars think that Smith developed the justification for polygamy before he entered a plural relationship with Alger, and that he probably had a marriage ceremony to mark their joinder, some scholars (like Brodie) take the opposite view, that Smith had a relationship with Alger before developing or understanding the religious justification for that relationship. So the language in this article ought to be compatible with both possibilities. COGDEN 22:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Notability is a relative issue; for critics of Joseph Smith it has been a wonderful bit of fat to chew since the beginning while for others it is at best an unremarkable "nonevent", i.e. it really does not matter relative to everything else that went on during his life. The value of an individual's life is not made up simply of those things critics find interesting, but rather those things that made the individual remarkable in history. The article does a better job of covering the major points critics enjoy hearing about and fails to really inform readers why this individual is worthy of historical note.

Is the purpose of the article to satisfy the interests only of critics or is it more important to focus on why Smith is important? If this one question were asked for every sentence in the article we all would find a drastically different article. Rabid critics would cry foul, POV, etc., but their complaints only legitimize their desire for a very twisted article. Frankly, I see no need to always cater to a single view point - no other religion article uses this lens - why this one? Because Evangelicals are so loud in their complaint? Or is it that Mormons are so willing to comply to the whims of critic? Or, more likely, Wikipedia articles are controlled by those that care the most that their POV be heard and enforced? Unfortunately, the last statement would seem the most likely reason and it is also the problem of a public forum for writing articles. At the end of the day, I have come to accept that it is just best to grin and bear it; shake my head in disgust; and look for other ways to spend my precious time. -^StormRider 12:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

When a person claiming to be sent from God to restore primitive Christianity has an affair with an adolescent girl in his household, the occasion can be described as a "non-event" only by those who have closed their minds to the testimony of a man's life.--John Foxe (talk) 15:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

If Smith had never advocated plural marriage, his relationship with Alger (despite her age--this is the 1830s, so 15 year olds were considered much older than they are today) would just be a run-of-the-mill affair that would deserve about the same amount of attention that the affairs of anybody else during that time period would have. In other words, it might just have been little more than a footnote. But this was not just an affair. Alger was Smith's first plural wife by several years, and her marriage is integrally important to the development of the plural marriage doctrine. The relationship also played a role, behind the scenes, in the 1838 collapse of the church in Kirtland. COGDEN 18:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

"Nature of reliable sources"

This is in response to conflicting edits.

Ah-hem. Please explain what could possibly be more reliable to document what a man's claims about himself are than books the man published himself? There can't be any more direct, reliable sources than someone's own published words for anything, ever! --BenMcLean (talk) 15:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect,with all regular editors coming from different backgrounds, the way we've been doing this to adhere to NPOV is by consensus. Your edits, and that of the IP, include references to non-scholarly works and websites. Best, A Sniper (talk) 16:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Wait, you're saying we can't cite primary sources, but have to rely in the reinterpretations of some scholar rather than citing a person's own words to establish their claims about themselves? --BenMcLean (talk) 16:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. It often sounds peculiar to folks who are new to the encyclopedia, but Wikipedia privileges secondary sources over primary ones. At Wikipedia, articles must be based on "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy....Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources." So at Wikipedia, Joseph Smith's testimony about himself is disallowed except insofar as it confirms such secondary sources as the scholarly biographies of Fawn Brodie and Richard Bushman.--John Foxe (talk) 16:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

OK. But you and A Sniper didn't just say my sources are no good, you said my edit is POV. What is POV about it? Does anyone seriously dispute that Smith made these claims about himself or that these claims are among the most significant and noteworthy features of his life? I haven't read these biographies but couldn't you or someone else who has, look up where it is covered in these biographies that he did in fact make these claims about himself? --BenMcLean (talk) 16:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The issues with your edit:

• Obscure source
• Specifying The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (while it's true he was the first president of the LDS church, the same can be said of the Community of Christ and other (smaller) Latter Day Saint denominations.)
• Giving details, like precise dates, that aren't really needed in the summarizing lead section

However, it wouldn't hurt to mention in the lede that Smith claimed to translate the BoM "by the gift and power of God". That detail, I do think, is enlightening for the quick overview of Smith's life. Noting the claim to restoring the priesthood wouldn't hurt either. ...comments? ~BFizz 18:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

As to adding "by the gift and power of God", I don't think that exact text is appropriate, because it is a bit euphemistic. (He doesn't say what his "gift" was: divination with a seer stone.) The central point is that he claimed to translate by a supernatural or miraculous process, rather than through scholarship. I think that the present text at least strongly implies that already, and it is further explained in the body of the article. I hesitate to provide more detail in the lede than what already exists. COGDEN 19:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I just think it important to note that Smith claimed that God both 1) mandated that he translate the BoM, and 2) enabled him to do so. As far as I am aware, he claimed neither of these things when treasure hunting with seer stones. In our overview text, we need to make a distinction that when Smith produced the BoM, it was a religious (God-related) claim, in contrast to his previous treasure-hunting activity. Possible edit:

"After publishing what he said was an English translation of the plates as the Book of Mormon,"

=>

"Claiming that God had empowered him to translate the plates to English, he published his translation as the Book of Mormon. Soon after,"

...comments? ~BFizz 19:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I myself consider myself to be a follower of Joseph Smith III and the claim of the original Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is that it is the legitimate continuation of the original Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints of the 1830s. I thought that adding the word "original" before the name of the church would be POV because it would imply that the present day LDS church is not the original church and that would be promoting my own (and Joseph Smith III's) position over other positions. No one disputes that the church of the 1830s was called "the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" and that Joseph Smith Jr. was it's founder, not even the RLDS. But asserting in a Wikipedia article that there is a difference between "the original" and the present day would be POV. Adding "the original" would fit my own views better but I'm not sure it would be NPOV. --BenMcLean (talk) 18:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

. Uh, I dispute the name of the church, Ben. 1830: Church of Christ. 1834: Church of the Latter Day Saints. 1838: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. 1830s = several names, and not a hyphen in sight ;) Best, A Sniper (talk) 19:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Admin Needed

I think it is time that we again grab an admin to supervise. Foxe is no longer editing fairly - ownership issues? Now it is a moral crusade to expose JSJr as an immoral bastard. Is that really our role as editors - to be on a crusade? This whole thing started with the issue of undue weight. Now it is a revert war by an editor on a POV mission. Best, A Sniper (talk) 16:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd be happy to have an outside administrator render his opinion.--John Foxe (talk) 16:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I've protected the page because of the edit warring/content dispute. Issues of ownership and POV are done through consensus, not by an administrator. I think you all know the proper channels for this; WP:DR is a starting point. tedder (talk) 16:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for stepping in.--John Foxe (talk) 20:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

If it's about consensus, there seems to be a strong consensus that John Foxe is on a biased moral crusade at the moment. I don't question his ability to add good input into the article discussion at times, but I think we are trying to protect John Foxe from himself right now. If we are to take his crusade of late as reflective of his entire aim in contributing, we will have an awful lot of work to do to reedit the article based on his biased influence on its present state. I had actually considered whether his account had been hacked, until I saw some of his source knowledge which is not likely to be held by an inexperienced hacker. I'm trying to be fair-minded here, but this is over the edge stuff. Perhaps a discussion/editing freeze until cooler heads can prevail? Canadiandy1 (talk) 00:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

Opening sentence

I'm not sure how to pursue this but I think the opening sentence seems to make him much more moderate and unimportant than he really claimed to be. The introductory paragraphs as they currently stand fail to adequately explain Joseph Smith Jr's relevance as a religious figure, giving undue weight to his political ambitions while minimizing what made him remarkable: his supernatural claims. It seems to me to give more weight to his influences than to his influence. Whatever political offices he held or other practices he had, his primary historical relevance is his role as translator of the Book of Mormon, restorer of the priesthood, "prophet seer and revelator" and president of the church. In addition to the text I suggested, I think the second sentence also ought to mention that he was a candidate for president of the United States and that he was assassinated in 1844. --BenMcLean (talk) 16:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Ben, when the protection is lifted from the page in mid-May, we can all begin editing again without the hot heads. However, this must be based on secondary sources. I agree with John Foxe on that point - that it must adhere to third party, bona fide references. I reverted your edits because they did not contain adequate sources. You also referred to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which is incorrect. And 'general authority'? In a controversial article such as this, every edit has to be carefully made - we work by consensus here. You'll note that the main biographies of JSJr are indeed used as references throughout. Best, A Sniper (talk) 16:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Have you read these biographies? Anyone here who has read any decent biography of Joseph Smith should be able to cite that biography to confirm all of the points I added. --BenMcLean (talk) 16:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I would assume that most of us who work on this article possess the most popular of Smith biographies, even with our differing backgrounds and points of view. Remember that we're not writing a tract or apologetic text - this is an online encyclopedia. Everything must have a bona fide reference. Best, A Sniper (talk) 16:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not talking about defending the validity of the man's claims, only the necessity of stating what they, in fact, were - not whether they're true. Wikipedia has to maintain a neutral stance and I think it's failing to do so here by not accurately representing what is notable here. --BenMcLean (talk) 17:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• Candidate for President - while it is an impressive detail, the reality is, it is an obscure detail at the end of his life; had he not been killed so soon after announcing his candidacy, it would be much more relevant. It is mentioned later in the lede, which I believe is sufficient.
• Assassinated - it wasn't exactly an assassination, it was mob violence, which is less carefully planned and executed.

However, mentioning he was murdered in the first few sentences is not out of the question. The first paragraph is where the absolutely essential details about this man should go, and his murder is certainly a critical detail about his life. Perhaps we could insert a third sentence, something vaguely similar to this: "Smith's extraordinary claims to religious authority were polarizing: believers adored him and considered him a prophet, while dissenters criticized, brutalized, and eventually murdered him." ...comments? ~BFizz 18:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmmmmmmmmmm.... I personally am rather inclined to think that the murder of Joseph Smith Jr. by the mob was a somewhat planned out affair. The mob came there specifically to kill Joseph Smith which is why they came to be in the place they were - I don't think it was a spur of the moment thing. Mob violence tends to be somewhat indiscriminate in it's destruction, while assassination is "to murder (a usually prominent person) by a sudden and/or secret attack, often for political reasons." (It wasn't secret but it certainly was sudden) and an additional definition is "the act of deliberately killing someone especially a public figure, usually for hire or for political reasons" and it definitely was deliberate and it definitely was a public figure. I'd say there is substantial overlap between assassination and mob violence. But whether we could agree on that or not, we certainly must agree that it was a "murder" and not merely a "killing." --BenMcLean (talk) 19:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

There's not really a good word to describe Smith's killing. Was he assassinated? Lynched? Murdered? Killed in action? There are elements of truth in all these words, but none are perfect. Killed is probably the most generic word. COGDEN 19:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Though murdered implies intent to kill, and is otherwise almost equally generic. The mob certainly did not show up with guns blazing, not intending to kill JSJr. ...comments? ~BFizz 19:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

One other non-genericity about wikt:murdered, it also implies a criminal or unlawful act, which is also true here. ...comments? ~BFizz 19:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, BFizz. I am fine with killed as it is at least neutral. But in reality the mob did show up with guns blazing. They stormed the jail with guns and fired into a locked room. So I think murdered (maybe not by each mob member, but by the mob collectively) is appropriate. Canadiandy1 (talk) 00:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

Need bibliography section

There also ought to be a bibliography section of books that he wrote himself, because in addition to publishing what he claimed to be revelations from God, Smith also published works written on his own behalf (expressing his own private opinions) such as this book here. --BenMcLean (talk) 16:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Ben, this article has an exhaustive list of material contained within. In the early days of my editing this article, I tried inserting all manner of primary source material - direct refs to Times and Seasons, Millennial Star, Nauvoo Neighbor, etc. - similar to the collection of letters you've mentioned - this unfortunately must take a backseat to secondary, scholarly works as per the rules of Wikipedia. Best, A Sniper (talk) 16:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

No no no, I'm not talking about citing these works, I'm only talking about listing them because Joseph Smith was an author, and Wikipedia pages for authors do typically include bibliographies. --BenMcLean (talk) 17:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

This idea has come up in the past, and has received no strong opposition, iirc. One reason for avoiding it is to avoid the issue of whether to attribute the Book of Mormon as Joseph Smith's own work. But that can be overcome; a bibliography section isn't a bad idea. ...comments? ~BFizz 18:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I do see your point. Joseph Smith Jr's relationship to the Book of Mormon is somewhat unique and very problematic to describe in terms of linguistics. If we call him the "translator" of the Book of Mormon as he claims to be, we are discounting the theories that he is a liar, while if we describe him as it's "publisher" we are being flatly inaccurate because he was not, in fact, it's publisher. Egbert Grandin was the Book of Mormon's first publisher. If we call him the Book of Mormon's "author" then we're discounting his essential claim that he did not write it but only translated it "by the power of God." It is a very knotty problem to find a term that is ambigious enough so as not to commit iteslf to any of these conflicting views.

However, for those books and articles for which it is undisputed that Joseph Smith Jr. was definitely the principal author, there should be no problem with a bibliography section. Perhaps there should be separate sections for "alleged revelations" and simple bibliography. --BenMcLean (talk) 19:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Good idea Ben. I have no idea how anyone could have a neutrality problem with a simple list of Smith's publications. The Book of Mormon is already mentioned prominently in the article, so it could be left out. Or leave it in, I'm fine either way. Canadiandy1 (talk) 00:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

In principle I don't oppose this, but is there enough material for a meaningful list? There are only three self-contained works I can think of that he published under his own name: the Book of Mormon, the D&C, and his 1844 political pamphlet. There are a few editorial articles, if you'd want to include those, such as a defense of slavery he published over his name in 1836, a Q&A from the Elder's Journal, and maybe a couple others. I guess you could include posthumously published works such as the Book of Abraham, his revision of the Bible, and his history (which he didn't actually write, except for a small part at the beginning). COGDEN 11:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Using the handy archive search box at the top of the page, I found this short discussion we had a little while ago. Nobody really latched onto the idea at the time. Talk:Joseph_Smith,_Jr./Archive_16#Bibliography. ...comments? ~BFizz 19:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

What about the Wentworth letter? I suspect there were a number of other letters to editors. They are only on volume one of his papers. Even if it's short, why is that a problem? I bet we'd hear grumbling if it was too long. --Canadiandy talk 20:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

POV

Here is my issue: This article sounds as if John Foxe here is merely trying to expose Smith as an immoral fraud. It downplays on the positive aspects of Smith's life and emphasizes things that would seem "strange" to non-LDS people, as if John Foxe is trying to convince people that Smith was a liar and a conartist with a Wikipedia article. As a Latter-day Saint and a studier of Church history, I am fully aware of Joseph Smith's life and teachings, and many, many parts of this article are dreadfully and severely misleading. This whole thing needs to be fixed by somebody who is not completely biased against the church (like John Foxe obviously is). My other issue is that John Foxe seems to believe that this is his article; whenever information is added to it, he reverts the edit without offering an explanation, especially when the information puts Joseph in a positive light. John Foxe is obviously uncomfortable with having such information on here for whatever reason. 63.248.11.9 (talk) 17:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I personally have a problem with bias or POV of any kind at Wikipedia, pro-LDS or anti. NPOV is the key - that the article is written by consensus using secondary sources. If you wish to edit based on the rules of Wikipedia, that's fine with me. If you're agenda-driven, that is problematic. Best, A Sniper (talk) 17:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be "agenda-driven." My problem is that John Foxe is deleting any kind of material that puts Joseph Smith in a positive light, and in doing it seems as if he is claiming ownership of this article, which he has no right to do. I am not saying that this article should be flooded with pro-LDS material, but it needs to be more balanced. The negative bias in this article is very apparent. 63.248.11.9 (talk) 17:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

One of the problems I find on Wikipedia pages that deal with any controversial subjects (notably the debate among the American public over the Darwinian and Neo-Darwinian hypothesis and perceived academic elitism) is that they are constantly tripping over themselves to discredit controversial ideas even before the nature of the ideas being criticized are adequately explained or defined. I think this is the problem here. In the article on John F. Kennedy, a primarily political figure, his Presidency and his assassination are covered in the opening paragraph. His adultery is not. Joseph Smith Jr. is a primarily religious figure, but his polygamy is in the opening paragraph and his assassination is not. This seems inconsistent. --BenMcLean (talk) 17:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that is exactly consistent. For a political figure, their runs for office and assassination are usually some of the most notable elements of their history. For Joseph Smith, a religious figure, the most notable elements of his history are of a religious nature, such as polygamy and other doctrines, theocracy, his revelations, any religious or magico-religious influences, and his primarily religious legacy. Non-religious elements of his story, like his run for president and assassination, are also important, but not quite as important as they would be in an article such as the JFK article.COGDEN 00:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey, Ben. I agree with most of what you are saying here, but it's important not to try to take on John Foxe or any other contributors. That is counterproductive to improving the article. Remember, time is on the side of truth. Be patient. The biggest problem right now is that the only people involved in the editing here have huge POV issues (on both sides). Granted, some are able to put those aside and aim for fairness, and some are less willing to do so. I dream of the day we can all drop out of this one because the contributors will be focused on both respect AND reliable evidence. In that dream none of the contributors have an agenda to push or slag any religion. Even tough I'd never have voted for the guy even if I could have, I nominate Bill Clinton (a fiscally responsible Democrat). A moderate. Not too educated, not too stupid. Not too left, not too right. Canadiandy1 (talk) 02:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

Incompleteness of citation 20

The quotation in cite 20 is misleading. It is misleading because it omits surrounding information from the original source which directly qualifies the portion of text which is being quoted. The qualifying surrounding information from the original source states: "In making this confession no one need suppose me guilty of any great or malignant sins. A disposition to commit such was never in my nature." This information is necessary to qualify Joseph's own use of the words "Corruption, foibles, temptations, appetites".

If adding the qualifying information seems to make the citation too long or cumbersome to read, then I suggest the quotation be removed completely.

Do it right, or don't do it at all. - Dan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.39.227 (talk) 16:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The part of the note including the deletions and insertions seems out of place, and I would suggest removing it:

Smith et al. (Richards, p. 5) (writing that he "displayed the weakness of youth and the corruption foibles of human nature, which I am sorry to say, led me into divers temptations to the gratification of many appetites offensive in the sight of God, deletions and interlineations in original);"

It looks like an attempt to draw attention to Smith's changing the account to seem less severe; such an attempt would be better suited either in the article body or in a subarticle.

Furthermore, part of the same footnote says this:

Smith (1994, pp. 17–18) (arguing that his prayer related to a sexual sin).

However, I checked the source (conveniently available as a pdf: Nauvoo Roots of Mormon Polygamy) but could not find this argument anywhere. I suggest removing this as well. If anyone is opposed to these removals, please speak up. Otherwise I'll ask an admin to perform the edit. ...comments? ~BFizz 19:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a COGDEN footnote; maybe you could check with him before you delete. Eliminating the quotation is no problem for me.--John Foxe (talk) 19:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Since the article quotes Smith's own language of "gratification of many appetites", my personal preference is to quote the full original sentence in the footnote. Actually, the best quotation would be the original text, without the insertions and deletions, which were probably added in much later by someone other than Smith (maybe Willard Richards). But I have no strong objection to omitting the full sentence and just leaving "gratification of many appetites" in the main body with citations to the secondary sources, I don't think we lose anything other than the rich and interesting flavor of Smith's original confession. I would still leave the primary source as a citation even without the larger quote, to show where the cited language came from.

As to adding the part about Smith not having committed any "great or malignant sins," I have some concerns about adding that. This language was not in the original text, or in the version published in Times and Seasons by Joseph Smith in April 1842 when Smith himself was the editor of that newspaper. The "great and malignant sins" language was added by Willard Richards around 1842-43, and I'm not aware of any scholarly evidence indicating that Smith was personally involved in Richards' work on the Documentary History. It's likely that Richards composed it. In any event, this is one of the difficulties in citing primary sources on Wikipedia. If we include more of the quote than merely "gratification of many appetites," I think it should be a very strict and literal quotation of the original text, without any added material that might not be Smith's words.

As to the Smith (1994) reference, you are right that there is an error in this citation. It should be to Smith's 2008 book, rather than his 1994 Dialogue article. Other than the incorrect date, the citation is correct.

The article quotes "gratification of many appetites". The citation quotes "gratification of many appetites" crossed-out. This is facially inconsistent. Moreover, the sentence in the article is long and complex. The most logical solution is to remove both instances of the quote and replace the quote found in the article with a simple word like "sins". This solution would both solve the inconsistency and remove some complexity from the sentence. Additionally, the use of the word "sins" (a genus) conveys any and all meaning which is originally conveyed with the phrase "gratification of many appetites" (a species of the genus). -Dan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.169.142.110 (talk) 22:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate COGDEN's elucidation of footnote 20.

Let me suggest that the phrase "while praying for forgiveness from his 'gratification of many appetites'" be dropped and that the footnote 20 material be added to footnote 21. At the least, the words "Smith said" should precede the "while praying" phrase; we don't want to imply that we know what Smith was praying about or that he was praying at all for that matter.--John Foxe (talk) 14:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the "Smith said" and "while praying" need to be (at least) reordered for clarity. I also agree that the "while praying for forgiveness" phrase could be dropped: it's a minor (though interesting) detail in Smith's Angel Moroni / Book of Mormon claims. ...comments? ~BFizz 03:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the idea is important that Smith framed his Angel Moroni vision in the context of his personal worthiness and struggle with personal sin. Maybe this can be expressed better than it is presently, but there has been a fair amount written about Smith's early struggles with sin and feelings of unworthiness. It's a small point, but I think it ought to be made, to give the reader context as to his personality. We don't necessarily need to quote Smith's own words, though. COGDEN 05:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

First Vision Caption

I just had a chance to check out the present status of the caption of the First Vision image (stained glass). It now reads that, "Smith's later theology described Jesus and God the Father as two distinct physical beings." Why is it any time I look into the wording of this article it seems there is a subtle, tongue-in-cheek, tone of cynicism? I accept the position that some believe his theology changed, but this is debatable at best and not known. Yes, it will be argued, in his later life his theology was 'X' but the syntax here implies that it changed, which is not known, only speculated. And speculation should be referenced or we are pushing POV.

Can we simply drop the word 'later'?--Canadiandy talk 01:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiandy1 (talk • contribs)

All authorities, Mormon and non-Mormon, agree that Smith's theology changed. If you can find a WP:RS that says not, simply cite it.--John Foxe (talk) 01:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

If you mean to say all authorities you have studied agree that there are different statements over time by Joseph Smith, you may actually be right. Even then, there is sufficient discussion and debate to make it impossible to know beyond any doubt whether this is the case, and so it seems POV to state this speculated 'change' as fact. Additionally, imperative statements are quite uncalled for (i.e. "If you can find a WP:RS that says not, simply cite it)." Good etiquette suggests that you use declarative or interrogative statements. For example, "If you can find a source that says not, I would invite you to use it." I have pretty thick skin, generally, but I am sure there are others who would not be so comfortable. Oh yeah, I'd like to look into some of these "Mormon" authors. Besides Brodie and Bushman who are the other "Mormon" authorities who promote the changing theology theory?--Canadiandy talk 05:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiandy1 (talk • contribs)

In the discussions above, I've provided a long list of reliable secondary sources on this point, both Mormon and non-Mormon. That Smith's theology changed is not controversial. I think the onus is on you to find reliable sources supporting the unorthodox view your are putting forward. COGDEN 06:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

COgden, I was more interested in who besides Bushman (selected because he is the rare (token?) Mormon focused on finding fault with Joseph Smith) and Brodie (as Mormon as Luther was Catholic)or, laughably, Widmer, you are identifying as "Mormon" authorities. And yes, the theory that Joseph Smith's theology changed may not be controversial, but lack of controversy does not make something known. There is no onus on me no matter how many times you say it. The onus is on the authorities to prove (not just agree on a collective theory) that Joseph Smith's theology "changed". I'm not expecting anyone to write that Joseph Smith's theology didn't change, that would be a biased expectation and unfair. But, vice versa, to push as an unquestionable fact the position that Joseph Smith's theology "evolved" or changed is likewise opinion (regardless of whether it is the dominant opinion of authoritative scholars or not) and should likewise be prefaced as opinion or speculation. Oh yeah, I'm having a hard time finding your list, could you repost?--Canadiandy talk 07:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiandy1 (talk • contribs)

LDS Church Historian Leonard Arrington wrote in The Mormon Experience (1979) about the King Follett sermon (1844): "To believers such ideas provided a challenging vision of their relationship to God and their own eternal potential. But to those outside of Nauvoo who heard rumors of the strange new doctrines they seemed the worst kind of blasphemy."--John Foxe (talk) 18:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

@Canadiandy, it doesn't matter how many of the authors I cited (now in Archive 17) are Mormon. But I think most of them happen to be. I could be mistaken, but I think all the authors I cited are Mormon, except except Jan Shipps, who is a Methodist. So that would inlcude Bushman, Alexander, Kirkland, Ostler, White, Widmer, Charles, Hale, and Thomas. COGDEN 18:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

COgden. I am looking for a justification for why the article at present is pointedly crusading to make the point that it is a certainty that Joseph Smith's theology changed. Your comment seems to point out only that some LDS members had a hard time with the KFS which focused on God's having once had a mortal existence. This does not conflict with Joseph Smith's earlier statements about God having both a spirit and a body. If you ask me to describe a car and I tell you it was a red Mustang, and then when you ask me later about the interior I tell you it had grey bucket seats, did my testimony change? A lawyer could argue it did, but a fair judge would say, 'no.' The testimony is consistent. But I see you have a lot invested in keeping 'later' in the caption and defaming Joseph Smith, so I will voice my protest and move on.--Canadiandy talk 05:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

All WP:RS scholars of Mormonism understand that Joseph Smith's theology about the nature of God changed. My quotation from Arrington above was intended to demonstrate that even an LDS Church Historian believed this to be true. Musings about red Mustangs can't substitute for citable evidence to the contrary.--John Foxe (talk) 10:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

JohnFoxe. I thought my red mustang analogy was quite clear and appropriate. If you are uncomfortable with it you could just say so. But disrespectfully labeling it a "musing" simply supports the arguments elsewhere that you are trying to control this article. Still, the onus is on you to prove (not merely support your belief) that Joseph Smith's later testimony irrefutably contradicted his earlier testimony. That is the only way you can prove what you want to label as a "change" or even an "evolution" in theology. That he revealed further detail does not justify calling his theology "changed." Regardless of how some Church members, critics, or even academics feel about it, if you are publishing it as fact you will need to provide irrefutable evidence and proof, not just the commonly held academic theory. Commonly held theory is not necessarily the same as fact.--Canadiandy talk 13:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

@Canadiandy And that is why Wikipedia policy often seems strange to people. Wikipedia isn't a place for facts. It's a place to express commonly held academic theory (and sometines, notable less-commonly held academic theory).

@Foxe Don't confuse statements about what the church generally believed to be synonymous with what Smith generally believed. No scholars pretend to have been inside Smith's head, and there really isn't a lot of evidence to prove what Smith's personal beliefs were.

@All So apparently, when we say "Smith's theology", we are talking about Smith's publicly taught theology. Some editors, like Canadiandy, take the statement that Smith's theology changed over time to mean that we are also insinuating that it was inconsistent. While that may indeed be Foxe's intent (or at least, his belief), "changing theology" seems consistent with "continuing revelation". From an apologetic LDS view, I could argue that Smith's understanding of the nature of God did not change, but rather, that he was instructed by God to explain the doctrine little by little - gradually weaning members away from traditional Christian views (I'm not saying that we insert this in the article; I'm simply illustrating that an apologetic view doesn't necessarily have to reject the statement that Smith's (publicly taught) theology changed). One of Bushman's critiques of the article was that we neglected the "continuing revelation" angle; I'm sure we can get some RSes that say something to the effect of "Smith wasn't afraid to introduce new doctrines due to his claim to continuing revelation". Perhaps we should look into expounding on this idea in the theology section. ...comments? ~BFizz 14:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, BFizz. Very helpful input. I get that Wikipedia isn't the place for fact. All I am asking from JohnFoxe and COgden is that their theory isn't posed as fact.--Canadiandy talk 14:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

So long as the word "later" remains in the picture caption, I'm perfectly content to have the word interpreted any way the reader chooses. And I certainly have no problem introducing the notion of "continuing revelation" to the article.

But whether or not Joseph Smith changed his theology is not theory in the context of this article. For Wikipedia purposes, the fact that Smith's theology changed is an absolute, undeniable fact because that's what reliable sources say. Canadiandy's use of the phrase "commonly held theory" might imply that there are other possibilities, but in fact there are none—that is, none backed by reliable sources.--John Foxe (talk) 17:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is for reliable sources. I don't like smears and I don't like agenda-pushing, and so I've tangled with an editor or two over the years. But if there were reliable, bona fide, secondary sources that said JSJr loved smoking cigars and drinking beer at Moesser's Bar in Nauvoo, we'd be obligated to stick it in the article if relevant and part of a flowing narrative. Best, A Sniper (talk) 18:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Give me the beer and cigars, and I'll provide the relevance and flowing narrative.--John Foxe (talk) 20:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The sources that describe Smith's changing theology primarily rely on the changes as reflected in Mormon scripture and ultimately in the King Follett discourse. Nobody claims to be able to peek into Smith's mind, but at the same time, I don't know of anyone, apologist or not, that would seriously propose that Smith believed a theology different from the theology he actually taught and revealed as scripture. That would be a problem from an apologetic perspective, because it implies that Smith's early revelations were purposefully deceptive. COGDEN 04:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Is Bushman Reliable?

Since you are all so eager to quote Bushman, I found this one in an article reporting on how edit warring and sockpuppetry have factored in the development of this article. I'm sure John Foxe has already read it since he was interviewed for it.

http://www.mormontimes.com/article/19551/Wiki-Wars-In-battle-to-define-beliefs-Mormons-and-foes-wage-battle-on-Wikipedia

But the most eye-opening quote is by Bushman himself. He "... thinks the article is technically accurate in the sense that the facts are traced to documents from people in the 19th Century. "But we have to remember that Joseph Smith was even more controversial in the 19th Century than he is now," Bushman said. "What I think is the real failing of this piece is that it lacks scope. It just picks its way along from one little fact to another little fact, all of them ending up making Joseph Smith an ignoble character of some kind. And it never really assesses Joseph Smith's achievement. What was the significance of this person in history? After all, he was the founder of a church that is remarkable for continuing for a couple of centuries. Yet it doesn't give you any sense of how he did that. There's no explanation of how he acquired all these followers. … The article doesn't say anything about the impact of new revelation on followers or even make much of the fact that Joseph was continually receiving revelation. So it becomes a picky piece that isn't inaccurate, but it sort of lacks depth. It ends up being shallow, I think."

Hmm, "failing ... lacks scope ... making Joseph Smith an ignoble character ... never assesses [his] achievements ... picky ... inaccurate ... lacks depth ... shallow." So if Bushman is right when he finds fault with Joseph Smith, is he right when he finds fault with this article too? You'd have a hard time arguing with Bushman, he is after all a prominent, peer-reviewed, authority on Joseph Smith.--Canadiandy talk 08:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiandy1 (talk • contribs)

Bushman is fine scholar and a man of great personal charm, but he's also a Mormon believer. His attempts to maneuver between academic respectability and the General Authorities has been no easy task. In his short book, On the Road with Joseph Smith (2007), about his year of book tour after publication of RSR, Bushman recounts a note from a retired General Authority expressing "disappointment" that "opponents of the Restoration will find additional fuel and that newly converted or marginal Saints may be weakened." Bushman replies that his "only aim was to tell a truthful story based on all the sources. The problem with the fuel-for-enemies objection is that the fuel is already there. I don't provide it. We have to deal with it or it will be used against us."(100)

So, considering the fine line that Bushman has to walk to stay in good graces of the folks in the Church Administration Building, I was greatly encouraged when he described this encyclopedia article as "technically accurate" picking its "way along from one little fact to another little fact." That's what we do here at Wikipedia, believers and unbelievers: we strive for technical accuracy, picking our way along from one fact to another. Musings on larger philosophical or religious truths have to be saved for other venues. Our only job here is to tell "a truthful story" based on reliable, peer-reviewed secondary sources, and Bushman's biography is one our best sources in the effort to do just that.--John Foxe (talk) 11:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Please reread your opening line, "Bushman is [a] fine scholar and a man of great personal charm, but he's also a Mormon believer." Kind of like saying, "Einstein was a brilliant scientist, but he was also Jewish." I think this is the very problem you are having here, JohnFoxe, the position that any Mormon that agrees with you is an authority, while any Mormon who does not is obviously unreliable. Discrimination based on religion is what it looks like. I didn't want to single you out, but the article makes the clear point that you (possibly with the support of COgden) historically have been so aggressive in dismissing input from conservative Mormons that they are simply leaving the discussion. The point the article makes still holds (whether you like it or not) that the focus of this article's primary editors has been not to find common ground, but to make it both critical and negative in tone and then to build a moat around it and throw in some alligators to feed any conservative Mormons to. I don't know for an absolute fact that that is true, but it sure looks that way from where I stand.--Canadiandy talk 16:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Canadiandy, I take seriously Bushman's critique of the article, and don't doubt that if Bushman wrote it himself, it would certainly have more engaging prose. In fact, we pretty much know how Bushman would write this article because he wrote the entry for Encyclopedia Britannica. But we can't copy Bushman's encyclopedia article for copyright reasons, and even if we could, that article would not be follow WP:DUE--even though his larger biography probably (almost) would. There is a big difference between a large biography and an encyclopedia article. In the latter, you have very limited space, and you have to make decisions about what information to omit, and what information to retain. Though Bushman agrees with the factual details that most of what mainstream historians have written about Smith, when you have to put all those details through a strainer and omit most of them, he is going to make a different editorial choice than other authors like Brodie, Quinn, the two Hills, Compton, Hullinger, Brooke, Van Wagoner, Vogel, Abanes, the Ostlings, etc. Writing this Wikipedia article is harder than Bushman's work on Brittanica because he could make his own editorial choices based on what he thought was important. We, on the other hand, have to write a encyclopedia article that a committee of Bushman, Brodie, Quinn, Compton, Vogel, etc., would likely produce. I'm strongly in favor of adding more philosophical material about Smith's meaning and importance, and I have some ideas of how to do so. But this is not easy, given that all the authors have different ideas on the meaning of Smith, and if we include one such perspective, like Bushman's, we must give them all their {{WP:DUE|due]] space in the article. COGDEN 17:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Canadiandy, the real difficulty for conservative Mormons is that Wikipedia articles must be based on reliable sources, and Mormon writers of apologetic history rarely publish peer-reviewed books or scholarly articles in peer-reviewed journals. (Bushman's an exception, and so is Terryl Givens.) Wikipedia demands reliable sources, not some sort of "common ground" between reliable sources and apologetic ones.--John Foxe (talk) 17:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

If this article reflects the dignity afforded any researchers who are not cynically focused towards Joseph Smith, is it any wonder they don't publish? I'm surprised they can report that Joseph Smith was male without being accused of LDS-POV or Mormon bias.--Canadiandy talk 18:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiandy1 (talk • contribs)

Canadiandy, there are many Mormons writing in citable fora. The peer-reviewed Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Journal of Mormon History, and Signature Books are full of Mormon authors, for example. Quite often, Mormon writers like Bushman, Givens, Juanita Brooks, have also written in peer-reviewed university presses. Citable Mormon sources are easy to find, as long as you stay away from FARMS, Deseret Book, and Bookcraft. I think the number of Mormon authors who only publish to uncitable fringe publications is rather limited. First of all, the only people who can make a living publishing to such fora are BYU professors, and second, only a handful of BYU professors are willing to spend their entire careers publishing works that get no scholarly recognition outside of BYU. Which is why someone like Royal Skousen, who sometimes writes fringy articles for FARMS, is still able to publish a mainstream work on the Book of Mormon accepted for publication by Yale University Press. It's not really about the author, their qualifications, or religious background, that makes them citable or uncitable--it's about the forum in which they choose to (or are able to) publish. COGDEN 07:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

What you seem to be saying is that as long as the authority is not published anywhere conservative Mormon thought is respected it is reliable. And the label for conservative LDS research is 'fringe'. Sounds to me like the iron dice are loaded.--Canadiandy talk 13:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC))

Wikipedia demands reliable sources, and Mormon apologists rarely publish such peer-reviewed scholarship.--John Foxe (talk) 13:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

One of the things you have to get used to about Wikipedia is that the threshold for inclusion is not factuality, but verifiability. Treatment of Mormonism isn't different than that of other religions in this regard; for example, sources that operate under the assumption that Jehovah's Witnesses is the true Christian religion, or that Muhammed was a true prophet, are equally considered "fringe". ...comments? ~BFizz 14:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm neither a Mormon or an anti-Mormon - I'm a Wikipedia editor. I wouldn't want Bushman or any other single person to write the whole article. Flaws or not, the whole point is that we keep chipping away at it - refining, reforming. Sometimes we lose our tempers, sometimes we're mellow. We stick with it, to make it more accurate, but always trying to follow the rules. Best, A Sniper (talk) 14:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit requested

{{Edit protected}} Please sort Please replace [[Category:Joseph Smith, Jr.]] with [[Category:Joseph Smith, Jr.| ]] per WP:SORTKEY. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. I didn't find the eponymous category actually on the page at all, so I added it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from JJADuP, 5 May 2011

I do not see any proof stating that Joseph Smith Jr. was a polygamist, yet in the first line of the article you say that he was one. Either take it away, or get your facts straight. JJADuP

JJADuP (talk) 07:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Uh, NO. Best, A Sniper (talk) 15:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The evidence is in footnote 242, which lists the estimates of reliable sources as to the number of wives Smith married: Compton (1997, p. 11) (counting at least 33 total wives); Smith (1994, p. 14) (counting 42 wives); Brodie (1971, pp. 334–36) (counting 49 wives); Bushman (2005, pp. 437, 644) (accepting Compton's count, excepting one wife); Quinn (1994, pp. 587–88) (counting 46 wives); Remini (2002, p. 153) (noting that the exact figure is still debated).--John Foxe (talk) 09:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

JohnFoxe. That seems like a nice touch, presenting the numbers in a progressively increasing way. Of course an unbiased presentation would present the numbers in a more random way, but I respect your right to be aggressive in your presentation of the facts. My interest is in the fact that they all have different numbers. So in essence, they are all wrong? But though they all disagree (no two came up with the same number), we will keep hearing the tidbit that they all agree that he had several wives. What's the old saying, if at first you don't succeed, manipulate your data.--Canadiandy (talk) 06:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey JJADuP. I too have a problem with the way Joseph Smith is so casually branded a "polygamist." I do not have a problem with the suggestion he may have been dynastically sealed (married) multiple times. But this would not be tantamount to a traditional definition of polygamy. My big problem is that that point is made far more prevalently than is the legacy he left as a devoted husband to Emma and a loving father to his children and those he and Emma adopted from other marriages. In fact, in spite of the fact that some "reliable" authorities claim he had over 30 wives, there has been absolutely no DNA evidence that he had even a single offspring except with Emma. That at least warrants, in my mind, a qualifier before a biased and simplistic labeling such as this. I couldn't imagine anyone having 30 wives in the 1840s and not having literally millions of descendants today (all which would have also traced their lineage back to Joseph). Then again, one big Wikiflaw is that even if it seems common sense and is logical, 100 year old hearsay from biased critic trumps plain logic here. But it would be really nice if you could stick around and add your input. Us few conservative Mormons are having a tough go of it here. And as has been evidenced in newspaper articles about this very article, it is quite controlled by the more cynical old guard (a self-professed anti-Mormon and COgden who identifies himself as a "Liberal Mormon"). Oh yeah, please refrain from using imperatives (telling people what to do). Better form is to ask or state your desire. It keeps the Mormon-bashing a little more civil.--Canadiandy (talk) 05:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

That Smith was a polygamist, and that his marriages were real marital unions involving sexual relations as the norm, is not a controversial point, especially among LDS scholars who are happy to see Smith as being just as much a polygamist, if not more so, than Brigham Young. The only faction that once doubted Smith was a polygamist was the RLDS Church (now the Community of Christ), but even they have come to terms with the fact that he had dozens of wives. The most conservative estimate, I believe, is 28, but that is at the far low end, and really, there is solid proof of at least 33. How many more than this 33 he actually had is unknown, and a bit speculative, because he didn't always keep records of his marriages, and they were all kept secret except among the participants and a few insiders. COGDEN 07:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Wow, if there ever was a fringe theory. So if his number of wives is 4 or 5 times those of Brigham Young, and Brigham Young has a progeny of literally millions of people, how do the authorities explain away not one single case of DNA evidence supporting this theory?--Canadiandy (talk) 14:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

As a great-grandson of a great-granddaughter of JSJr & Emma, I've come to grips with all of this, at least as a Wikipedia editor for years. I could push the agenda that I also indeed find it odd that not a single child has been proven from the alleged marriages (again: I use alleged not to wax agenda-like but because of the lack of consensus over whom & how many) but that the Brigham Young reunions now fill football stadiums. However, it always comes down to reliable, secondary sources for me. I'd love more folks from the RLDS/CoC tradition (Howard, Ham, Launius, etc.) to have written more scholarly, unbiased works on the subject (and someday will drag out some of the late 18th Century volumes I have in boxes). But what we have is what we have. We're either taking our Wikipedia editing seriously or we're agenda-pushing. I can go along with diminishing the tee hee tabloid factor, if for no other reason than it is far more speculative and shrouded in confusion and innuendo than anything written about Young's marriage habits. But I'm not willing to edit away all the Bushmans. I just plea to everyone that it is well-rounded and agenda-less... Best, A Sniper (talk) 15:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's that surprising that he didn't have any known children other than with Emma. Unlike with Brigham Young, Smith's polygamy was secret, and if any children were born to him other than from Emma, there would be political and possibly legal problems. COGDEN 19:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

In any case, there's no requirement that marriage results in offspring (or that offspring results in marriage, or that marriage is related to intercourse). Just because I haven't crashed a car doesn't prove I don't have a drivers license. tedder (talk) 19:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

My point is only that the lack of any DNA evidence calls into question either the theory or the authorities on the subject of Joseph Smith being a polygamist (I still don't deny his possibly being dynastically married to multiple women). The way I see it, either Joseph Smith was not a polygamist, or the researchers are incompetent. Of 30+ claimed wives not one left a memoir or journal entry or letter linking us to what would have to be millions of descendants? If you were to ask any authority on genealogy if this is possible they would laugh at you. So I am not arguing we deny the claim that Joseph Smith was or was not a polygamist, only that it be appropriately qualified based on what we all agree on, there is no DNA evidence anywhere proving any children to Joseph Smith except through Emma. 70.67.135.108 (talk) 15:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

The lack of DNA evidence makes no difference unless a reliable source says it does. And none do. All trustworthy sources agree that Smith was a polygamist. (Birth control techniques were known in the nineteenth century, and although crude by modern standards, they weren't completely useless, especially when practiced by those who had a lot to lose from discovery.)--John Foxe (talk) 17:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Not done: Request declined, due to lack of consensus at present. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

John Foxe. Is that how the authorities are explaining the lack of concrete evidence? As cynical a suggestion as it is, it's the only theory which actually might be possible. So maybe it should be in there. I won't stand in the way of your wanting to include that academic theory, especially as it seems the only plausible explanation. So if you are wanting to add something like,

"Authorities suggest Joseph Smith may have used birth control in every single one of these relationships which is the best theory to explain the strange reality that there has not been a single case in which DNA testing has reliably proven lineage to Joseph Smith through any wife except Emma."

Thanks for your input, John Foxe. --Canadiandy talk 03:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Personal opinions that you or I express on this talk page are just that, personal opinions. The article itself has to be based on reliable sources. (Here's another possibility: John C. Bennett is said to have promised women whom he seduced that he could perform any necessary abortions. It certainly wouldn't surprise me if he had also provided this service for an erstwhile friend. While women might have lined up to have claimed an alliance with the Prophet, none would have admitted to have had an abortion.)

Can both of you guys cease the tiddle taddle because it is all just a lot of hot air. If the reliable sources say JSJr had multiple wives, and reliable sources also state that there has yet to be a human being proved by DNA to be an illegitimate offspring of JSJr. (as the research in Utah concluded five years or so ago, covered in the press), we can allow readers to reach whatever conclusions they wish. Best, A Sniper (talk) 18:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I'm done.--John Foxe (talk) 19:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Not to flare up discussion again, but the question at hand is whether or not to state that JSJr was a "polygamist" in the lede, without further explanation until the article body. I'm OK with it there, and I even feel it important to mention it there (even if the marriages were only dynastic), although I'm not opposed to considering alternate ways of phrasing it. However, the alternatives I can think of (for example: "practitioner of plural marriage") seems either verbose or awkward. Joseph Smith did have multiple wives, and one way or the other, that is a rather important thing to make clear note of in the lede. ...comments? ~BFizz 01:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that anybody has ever published the theory that Smith's marriages were all merely "dynastic" in a reliable source. That theory has no constituency. Conservative apologists for the Community of Christ wouldn't write that because they claimed Smith never entered marriages other than to Emma. The LDS Church wouldn't claim that because they used to be proud of Smith's polygamy until the 20th century, and after the 20th century, they started claiming that the sole purpose of polygamy was to "raise a righteous posterity." So this is a fringe theory without a fringe. COGDEN 03:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

A Sniper. I totally agree with you that the reader should be free to reach whatever conclusion they will. But to reach that conclusion they should have all the relevant research. I just think the media research which recognizes there is no DNA evidence should be included so that the reader can make their decision. I'm not pushing POV, I'm pushing for inclusion and reference to what is reliably sourced, that there is not one single case of DNA evidence. I apologize if it is in the article and I am missing it. But, if not, seeing the iron wall some are willing to build up around this inconvenient point, I will surrender with reservation, registering my disagreement with the flippant dismissal of what is perhaps the most key question around the theories of Joseph Smith's so-called "Polygamy."--Canadiandy talk 04:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

This detail is indeed included in the article body; it is currently in the "Family and descendents" section: "DNA testing has provided no evidence that Smith fathered any children from women other than Emma." I could imagine including this in the lede as well, perhaps in the final paragraph or near there. Something to the effect of: "Though Smith secretly practiced polygamy, his only proven descendants are through his original wife Emma." I find it slightly strange that Emma isn't mentioned in the lede at all. I'd imagine his children, at least JS III, also merit a quick mention in the lede. ...comments? ~BFizz 05:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to adding a brief mention of his family, broadly defined. I think any mention of DNA testing is way too much detail for the lede, though. COGDEN 06:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

BFizz's proposal seems very fair. No mention of DNA to keep COgden happy, and the small qualifier the article needed to approach balance.--Canadiandy talk 07:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Instead of presenting it as a negatively and defensively, like "Smith didn't father Children except by Emma...", I'd present it positively, like "Smith was the father of X surviving children, all with his first wife Emma, and the husband of at least 27 other wives." COGDEN 01:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request: as of 2010

Please update {{as of|2010}} to be {{as of|2011}} in the last sentence of the first paragraph in the section "Family and Descendents". There are a couple other "as of" statements that could probably be updated as well. ...comments? ~BFizz 04:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Let me know about the others, or perhaps just wait a couple of days for the protection to expire. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Fanny Alger 2

When the block expires I'm committed to re-adding the material that describes Smith's relationship to Fanny Alger. Bushman gives the affair a subhead and four pages; no reliable source denies it. Sexual affairs of men who claimed to speak in the name of God have been treated frankly and at length at Wikipedia, as for instance Henry Ward Beecher, Billy James Hargis, and Jimmy Swaggart. Smith's affair with Alger is not gossip, and it's not WP:UNDUE because it's significant in the creation of Smith's doctrine of plural marriage. (There are accounts that Alger bore Smith's child; without additional proof these accounts are indeed gossip.)

While I'm personally disgusted that Smith seems to have taken advantage of a young girl who should have been under his protection and believe that the affair reflects negatively on Smith's character and reputation, my personal views should be completely discounted. Let's report the affair fully and let the reader decide for himself.--John Foxe (talk) 15:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Put your proposed text here so it can be wordsmithed/discussed while the article remains protected. alanyst 17:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Here's basically how the paragraph read before protection:

Smith had by some accounts been teaching a [[Mormonism and polygamy|polygamy doctrine]] as early as 1831,<ref>{{Harvtxt|Compton|1997|p=27}}; {{Harvtxt|Bushman|2005|p=326}}; {{Harvtxt|Hill|1977|p=340}}.</ref> and in 1833 he may have secretly engaged in a plural marriage with his adolescent household serving girl [[Fanny Alger]],<ref>{{Harvtxt|Bushman|2005|p=323}} (noting that Alger was fourteen in 1830 when she met Smith, and her involvement with Smith was between that date and 1836, and suggesting that the relationship began as early as 1831). {{Harvtxt|Compton|1997|p=26}}; {{Harvtxt|Bushman|2005|p=326}} (noting Compton's date and conclusion); ''but see'' {{Harvtxt|Smith|2008|pp=38–39 n.81}} (questioning whether Smith and Alger were actually married).</ref> a relationship Cowdery believed immoral.<ref>{{Harvtxt|Brodie|1971|pp=181–82}}; {{Harvtxt|Bushman|2005|pp=323–25}}.</ref> According to Bushman, Smith himself "never denied a relationship with Alger, but insisted it was not adulterous. He wanted it on record that he had never confessed to such a sin. Presumably, he felt innocent because he had married Alger."<ref>{{Harvtxt|Bushman|2005|p=325}}.</ref> --John Foxe (talk) 18:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

So the difference from the current text would be this:

and may have married secretly engaged in a plural marriage with his adolescent household serving girl Fanny Alger by 1833.

That, plus adding the "According to Bushman" at the end. Is that correct? I personally find it to be an unnecessary modification. I know Foxe is using a direct Bushman quote because he doesn't want to be accused of inserting this detail from his own POV. But it's rather awkward to quote him like this, imho. I'd be fine including the details that he "never denied a relationship with Alger, but insisted it was not adulterous", although in our own words. Perhaps something like this:

Cowdery accused Smith of inappropriate behavior with Alger; Smith insisted that his relationship with her was not adulterous.

...comments? ~BFizz 00:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

John Foxe. Isn't it your moral crusade that got the article blocked in the first place? Sadly, it looks like the John Foxe of old is back. I think you are capable of much better. Is your goal now simply to push and push and push until you get your way? I thought this was about consensus. And in my books, harassing your opponents until they quit isn't much in keeping with the Wikipedia ethic. I vote for a block on John Foxe. In fact, if an administrator wants to I would be willing to see "offsetting major penalties" (put us both in the box for a few months to even things up). Don't worry, the article won't change much with COgden protecting it until we're both out of the box.--Canadiandy talk 01:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the language above is bad, or the original language, but I'd favor a different approach. I think the Alger story, and the beginnings of polygamy, are significant plot points and they deserve more emphasis than they get. Right now, early polygamy is introduced as merely a factor that led to the Kirtland crisis of 1838 and Cowdery's defection. But I think we ought to devote a few sentences earlier in the section about early polygamy. This might include info like the following (I'm not saying all this should necessarily be included): Smith's suggestion that elders enter polygamous marriages with Native Americans to fulfill a Book of Mormon prophecy; Smith's performance of illegal monogamous marriages because he considered his right to marry by the priesthood to supersede government power to regulate marriage; while Smith considered (or came to consider) the relationship sealed by God, there are differing opinions on whether the relationship included an actual ceremony; Smith denied others the right to enter polygamy during this period; that Emma kicked Alger out of the house when she discovered the relationship, etc. COGDEN 03:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't favor that kind of detail in this article only because this is the upper level article and it is the kind of detail for the number of other articles that address polygamy in detail. Alger was not the reason for the development of Plural Marriage. The doctrine came first and then the practice of it. In this article the focus should be on the doctrine itself and the difficulties it caused Smith and his church. -^StormRider 06:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

COgden. Your wording about "plot points" reveals much. You seem to look at this article more like a story than a history. It seems that you, along with John Foxe are continuing along with the crusade of making the story juicy. I am a little saddened that you would take such a position and then fly the "Mormon" flag to justify it. I'm not sure what point you are trying to prove in your life but in years to come as you look back at your life I hope the highlight isn't the "wonderful" contributions you made at Wikipedia. You own the article for now, it's on your conscience. --Canadiandy talk 06:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

To return to the wording of the paragraph in question, what do you think of BFizz's compromise: the addition of "secretly engaged in a plural marriage" and "never denied a relationship with Alger but insisted it was not adulterous."--John Foxe (talk) 12:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

"Never denied a relationship with Alger?" Do you mean to say admitted to? Hmmm.--Canadiandy talk 05:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Here's what Bushman says: "Cowdery and Joseph aired their differences at a meeting in November 1837 where Joseph did not deny his relationship with Alger, but contended that he had never confessed to adultery. Cowdery apparently had said otherwise, but backed down at the November meeting. When the question was put to Cowdery 'if he [Joseph] had ever acknowledged to him that he was guilty of such a thing...he answered No.' That was all Joseph wanted: an admission that he had not termed the Alger affair adulterous." (324-25)--John Foxe (talk) 09:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

That is still presumptive. Not denying something is not the same as admitting it. Part of the fuzzy logic that has so confused this whole history I figure.--Canadiandy talk 15:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

It may be presumptive, but the person doing the presuming is a reliable source—which is what counts here at Wikipedia.--John Foxe (talk) 15:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes the person making a presumption may be a reliable source, but as I read it, an individual is reported by a third party not to have denied something, a researcher presumed something from this lack of denial and that empowers us to state it as fact? This may squeak through Wikipedia guidelines, but that doesn't mean it has consensus here. Am I the only one troubled by this?--Canadiandy talk 04:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Apparently you are. By Wikipedia guidelines a reliable source can make any presumption he'd like, and that presumption will always trump the logic and intuition of a WP editor. Of course, the presumption of such a reliable source might be rebutted by another reliable source. Seek and ye shall not find.--John Foxe (talk) 13:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

No disrespect, John Foxe. I don't think you get to speak for the community of contributors here. Knowing your POV and that you are the one pushing this issue, your position is a given. I'm also interested in what the others here think. Could the others please respond as to whether this is an issue that is key or helpful to the article and whether this is a road we need to take to improve the article? John says yes (correct me if I'm wrong John Foxe) and I say no. So right now there is no consensus. --Canadiandy talk 14:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

True, we lack consensus, and my "position is a given," but that makes no difference here because I have all the reliable sources on my side and you have none on yours.--John Foxe (talk) 16:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Consensus isn't important? Is that WP policy? I'd like to honor the input of the community here. That is why I will restate the question; do other contributors feel this is an issue that is key or helpful to the article and is this really a road we need to take to improve the article?--Canadiandy talk 19:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

If we sought a consensus here on whether or not Joseph Smith was a prophet sent from God, we could get one without difficulty. In the affirmative. But we couldn't introduce that consensus position to the article without citation to reliable sources. At Wikipedia, evidence from reliable sources trumps consensus just as it trumps logic, truth, and reason.--John Foxe (talk) 20:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Anyone else think this is key to the article's improvement?--Canadiandy talk 22:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I've made my opinion clear previously: I feel that additional information (from the reference point of the locked article) on Alger is unnecessary. However, I admit the possibility of including a small amount more, and I've outlined the amount I feel is still within limits of "due weight" policy. The choice rarely needs to be an include/exclude dichotomy. I feel that the current revision, with Bushman's presumption relegated to the footnote, is OK. I'm still a little unhappy with the "may have engaged" sentence; I don't recall if I noted before that it irritates my statistical sense of randomness (events in the future "may" or "may not" happen, they are uncertain. Events in the past "did" or "did not" happen, they are certain, though not always provable or knowable). Perhaps instead we could use "there is some evidence that..." or similar? ...comments? ~BFizz 00:49, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I rate this little escapade as the type of information that anti-Mormons love to talk about, but has no meaning. Cowdery, a trusted associate of Smith says something, but no one has proved what he knows and by what source. What we have is hearsay to implies a conclusion, but just hearsay. My personal feeling is that Smith was sealed to Alger. Did he have a conjugal relationship with her? It is possible, but I don't know. If he didn't I suspect that the did have a sexual relationship with at least one of his other wives, but there is no proof. Smith did say things as if he appreciated his wives, but in that statement it is only a inference.

As I stated above, I simply don't think this is valuable here. It is covered in a sub-article. What is important to know is that Smith supported plural marriage, he practiced it, but we do not know which of his wives were sealed only and which of his wives did he have a sexual relationship. Talking about Alger is titillating, but serves no purpose here.-^StormRider 06:15, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Every reliable source agrees that Smith engaged in a relationship with Fanny Alger, a teenager employed in his household. Neither he nor she denied it; neither apologized for it. Later all witnesses to the relationship agreed they were "married." Non-Mormons like me want to shout from the housetop, "The prophet was a lecher, his lack of moral character is clearly demonstrated in this instance." But that's no reason to exclude the information from the article, especially on grounds that it might be found somewhere else.

Mormons and non-Mormons agree in wanting to emphasize what's most important about Joseph Smith. But our notion of what's important differs.--John Foxe (talk) 11:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Alger is important for two reasons: (1) she was Smith's first polygamous wife, and (2) she was indirectly one reason for Cowdery's rift from Smith in 1837. Right now, we have an awkward way of introducing #1 as a side-note to #2. Actually, I think #1 is more important. Ultimately, I think there ought to be a little more about #1 and a little less about Alger's relation to #2, which was a pretty tenuous connection. The issue between Smith and Cowdery was deeper than just Alger. But info about Smith's earliest establishment of polygamy is very important in its own right. COGDEN 01:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

It is clear many (if not most) feel the focus on this issue is not necessary, or is too speculative (even if the speculations are made by "reliable" sources) to be featured as prominently as John Foxe and COgden would like. Seeing the community is clearly split on this issue, the question is whether John Foxe and COgden control the article or not. I will be interested to see what happens next.--Canadiandy talk 23:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Canadiandy, please take a look at WP:AGF. COGDEN 03:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

COgden, please take a look at WP:AOBF. I personally would love to see a return to balance in this article. I made no statements about bad faith, maybe about a concern over past practice. My comment is sincere that I am interested in what happens next. I did not express bad faith, merely the position that future actions will be what determines reality. I have an optimistic faith that John Foxe can return to a more balanced position as he has demonstrated in the past. As to what I might assume in your response here, COgden, I couldn’t begin to assume any faith, good or bad, because simply speaking your positions have been so confusing to me. The only common thread I have observed in the past is that you have ridden sidecar to almost everything John Foxe has done. And so I guess it follows that you, too, can also return to a balanced position as John Foxe does.--Canadiandy talk 04:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Allegations of ownership are not just throw-away allegations. If you think you have a real cause of action for ownership, you should gather your proof and go to dispute resolution. Otherwise, nobody listens to the editor who tries to shape articles through questioning editors' motives and religious devotion. COGDEN 21:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Clearly I touched a nerve I did not intend to. Your turn, but I am done with this one.--Canadiandy talk 02:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

COgden, what you propose is one alternative, the other of simply bringing it up, warning those involved is another. For you to assume that "nobody listens to the editor who tries to shape articles through questioning editors' motives and religious devotion" does speak to your assumptions of those who conflict with your edits and Foxe's. Further, both of you should reflect about the allegation of ownership. You both tend to focus on a single article and then control all edits; only those that meet your standards are acceptable and all others a rejected. If you both have not demonstrated ownership, you are both very, very close to it. Your assumption that it is only the religious devotion that prompts anyone to contradict your position is much worse than WP:OWN. I suppose that the exact same allegation could be assumed by Foxe and you. Foxe is an admitted anti-Mormon, is a professor in an Evangelical university, and is anything but neutral. You state your an active LDS committed to a "neutral" portrayal of historical fact. However, you write almost in lock-step with Foxe. This appears very much like a wolf in sheep's clothing and does tend to cause others to doubt your objectivity. Regardless, you and I both know that the article could contain a great deal of positive, referenced material on Joseph's life, his actions among the saints and his sacrifices on their behalf. The article is absent of any nobility of a young man that spent his life attempting to assist others in developing a much closer relationship to God and provide the hope of dwelling in his presence. It is an article that focuses only on the controversial points of his life; points that anti-Mormons spend their entire time disgorging in an unending wave of twisting and turning. Anti-Mormon "literature" should not be setting the agenda for this article, rather it should be a balanced approach to his life.

Joseph taught plural marriage; however, what is much more striking from a doctrinal standpoint is the his teaching on Sealings. His plural marriages/sealings were focused on eternity. Not a single historian attempts to portray each marriage as a sexual escapade because there is no evidence of any such life style. Who was the first plural wife, who was the 2nd, 3rd is meaningless. Is the 3rd more important than the next? Is the first more important than the last? The fact that he taught and married many women is what is important. Maybe giving a range of their ages, 14 to 58 years, is important for this article, but attempting to focus on individuals is best for other articles of which there are several. -^StormRider 06:38, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

First, I don't consider myself an "anti-Mormon." I've always gotten along well with Mormons in my personal life. Second, although I believe the Mormon religion false, that doesn't mean I can't edit this article any less objectively than a believing Mormon such as yourself. In fact, this article is as strong as it is because of the respectful give-and-take that we've evidenced here through many months.

I do view Joseph Smith's relationship with Fanny Alger as particularly significant. Smith had illicit contact with a teenager in his household who should have been under his protection; and that relationship, which both enraged and discouraged his wife Emma, speaks to both his character and his relationship to God. We wouldn't give a modern religious figure any slack about such a moral lapse, and there's no reason to try to protect Joseph Smith from the consequences of his wrongdoing either. What's most important about Joseph Smith is not his talk of visions and angels but the testimony of his life.--John Foxe (talk) 13:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

John Foxe; For most Mormons, the term 'anti-Mormon' usually does not imply people against Mormons but against Mormon doctrines. Now there are several 'anti-Mormon' (opposed to the doctrine)people who are also 'anti-Mormons' (opposed to the people) but I will assume in good faith you are not discourteous to the Mormons you know, as you claim. But (though I generally do not like labels) you do fit the description of one who is opposed to the doctrines of the Mormon people and so Stormrider is right in his expression. --Canadiandy talk 01:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I removed the sentence, "Smith never denied a relationship with Alger, but he insisted it was not adulterous." It is confusingly worded and just repeats the hypothesis that Alger was Smith's second wife. Plus, it's a stretch from the cited text. Let's just stick to the allegation: Alger is believed to have been Smith's first plural wife.

I've also added a tag until the source text can be inserted as a note for evaluation. Did Cowdery believe plural marriage or marriage to an adolescent or both "immoral"? Regards —Eustress ^talk 21:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

There's no evidence that Cowdery believed Alger to be Smith's first plural wife. Cowdery believed—and I believe—that Smith was simply committing adultery with a young servant who had the trust of his wife. (Are those sneer quotes around the word "immoral"?)--John Foxe (talk) 21:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

AGF, I was quoting the Wikipedia article. And your last edit was just disruptive. —Eustress ^talk 21:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

How was my edit disruptive?--John Foxe (talk) 22:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikilinking on the letter A

Why are we wikilinking to the article on the letter A in the following portion of this article?

"..failure to practice it would be to risk God's wrath.<ref>{{Harvtxt|Roberts|1909|pp=501, 507}} ("[[A]] those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same;..."

This makes no sense; is this a typo? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 16:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Good catch. Looks like a typo to me. ...comments? ~BFizz 16:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikiblame to the rescue; it was added here (looks like a typo by COGDEN?), the wikilink was fixed later. tedder (talk) 17:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's a typo. It should have read "[A]ll those who...." with single square brackets. (In the original, the 'A' is not capitalized. COGDEN 19:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Fanny Alger 3

Here's some fresh space to discuss the sentences about Fanny Alger. The article should make it clear that there's a disagreement among scholars about whether Joseph's association with Alger was a true plural marriage or simply adultery with a minor under his care.--John Foxe (talk) 17:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for stating your concern. I too want the issue to read more clearly. I've tried to reword the sentences to more accurately reflect the cited sources and to convey that there is some uncertainty among scholars regarding Smith and Alger's relationship. —Eustress ^talk 22:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Good. I've made a few tweaks, mostly to eliminate the direct mention of scholars (who are always behind what we write here) and to tighten the prose a bit. I do think the word "secret" is important.--John Foxe (talk) 01:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

...or whether there was no relationship at all. Foxe continues to imply that scholars think Smith had sex with Fanny Alger but Bushman, for one, only hints at the possibility. I oppose including Bushman's presumption in the article text, as I oppose other such speculative statements. Mentioning it in a footnote, where the quoted statement appears clearly beside the speculator's name, (I feel) is acceptable. ...comments? ~BFizz 04:27, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The sentence in the article says nothing about sex; it "only hints at the possibility."

The real importance of this incident is that it reflects negatively on Smith's probity, judgment, and character. Smith's immoral behavior (and I'm not ashamed to use the word "immoral") should not be disguised in the interest of religious sensibility.--John Foxe (talk) 23:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I think we're getting there. I added some critical context regarding Cowdery to the article. Bushman makes it clear that (1) Cowdery was the only person who ever made such a claim (in fact, David Patten said the rumors were untrue), (2) Cowdery was leaving the church at the time of his claim, and (3) Cowdery was charged with defamation subsequent to this claim in 1838.

John, can you provide the source text for the claim that the relationship was "secret"? —Eustress ^talk 14:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

In fact, Cowdery is our only contemporary source. All the testimony of the late nineteenth century, Mormon and anti-Mormon, is second-hand stuff that verges on gossip. (Can we compromise on just the two words "filthy affair"?)

Does the the source have to actually use the word "secret"? If Smith and Alger had a relationship and and no one knew about it, that's prima facie evidence that it was secret. Weddings usually call forth invitations and ceremonies. In this case, no one knew about it, neither party admitted to it, and there was no legal or even quasi-legal documentation. That's "secret" with a capital "S."--John Foxe (talk) 16:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with most of your tweaks. However, the word secret has a very specific meaning, and to use it here is OR, unless you can find direct support of its use. Additionally, you made changes that do not reflect the sources as cited; e.g., you changed "charged with slander regarding the matter in 1838" to "expelled from the church for slander"; and "leaving the church at the time of his claim" to "already estranged from Smith for other reasons" -- so I've modified the text to assuage these two concerns. —Eustress ^talk 20:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for giving me "filthy affair." That's a big step for me. I'm away from my books right now, but I'll try to find a quotation that properly expresses Smith's deceitfulness and bad faith. I can see your problem with "private." If I'm not mistaken, Cowdery was excommunicated from the church? Again, I'll check it out shortly.--John Foxe (talk) 21:22, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Bias in 'Ethics and Behavior'

Since I've now given up on the Alger trilogy, I have just finished reviewing the "Ethics and Behavior' section. In summary it is two paragraphs which point out;

Joseph Smith taught the Word of Wisdom but drank. Joseph Smith taught people to respect the law but 'broke' the law.

Seriously, has anyone read the section as it stands?

Can anyone explain how this is not simply a convenient and biased smear? No mention of his character in being the first to contribute upon learning of a family who lost their home. Or how he worked with (and not above) his followers. How about his faithfulness and loyalty to his brother, Hyrum? Or how about how the morning after being tarred and feathered he showed up to teach a sermon? So Bushman had nothing positive to say about Joseph Smith's character? The very title of the book "Rough Stone Rolling" seems to suggest Joseph Smith was a constantly improving individual despite adversity. No mention in his book of anything good in Joseph Smith's behavior or ethics? How is that conveniently missing?

I suggest removal of the section until it is balanced.

--Canadiandy talk 03:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the whole section needs to go. The only sentences that Canadiandy seems to find problematic are the concluding sentences of each of the two paragraphs.

Smith and other contemporary church leaders did not always follow this counsel.

This teaching perhaps explains why Smith felt justified in directing or permitting Mormon leaders to perform actions contrary to traditional ethical standards or in violation of criminal law.

The second is speculative and should be removed. The first feels like it's just an excuse to get Brodie's word about Smith drinking wine "with relish" into a footnote. The preceding sentences that explain that Smith presented the Word of Wisdom only as a guideline already imply that they did not strictly adhere to it at the time; so the first adds nothing to the prose.

A note to Canadiandy: the section is about the teachings of Joseph Smith, Jr regarding ethics and behavior, not necessarily about his own ethics and behavior. That said, "ethics and behavior" is a rather vague title and it seems odd that these two particular points were brought up in the section and nothing else. ...comments? ~BFizz 04:21, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Good point BFizz. Maybe the heading also needs to be reworded.--Canadiandy talk 06:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The second statement is analytical, not speculative. It is supported mainly by Quinn. It is a prominent historical interpretation, which I don't think should be deleted. One of Quinn's well-reviewed apologetic contributions is to put forward an ethical theory of Smith's behavior. In general, I think it's important to explain why Smith often felt unbound by normal legal and ethical principles, based on a higher theological justification. You could call this his "Celestial" law. It is one of Smith's common themes, upon which he spoke many times. Though clearly, the style and contents of this section can be improved. Maybe the heading could be something like "Ethical and behavioral teachings". COGDEN 06:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

COgden. Did you even read my initial statement? I am not questioning whether it is supported. I am not even asking for any of the items to be deleted permanently. I am asking only for a little balance. Have you found nothing in your all your studies that might suggest Joseph Smith was (or taught by example or principle) even fleetingly ethical or behaved ? If so why are you not contributing in a positive way? In my many months here I don't remember you contributing anything which dignifies Joseph Smith except as a compromise. A little help here would be appreciated.--Canadiandy talk 01:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that you're asking COgden to do your work. If you want to demonstrate that Joseph Smith was really a nice ethical fellow, why don't you find appropriate references in reliable sources such as Bushman, Brodie, Quinn, etc.? Then we can discuss where that information might fit in the article.--John Foxe (talk) 13:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

If COgden is a Mormon (though his contributions do not seem to me to follow that premise I will assume good faith) then the opportunity of honoring our first prophet is not 'my' work, rather it is 'our' work. My deferral in asking for his support is in essence a nod to his deep understanding of the research. It actually looks like you are the one showing disregard to COgden here. My communication was with him, and I trust he is intellectually capable of answering my questions all by himself. --Canadiandy talk 17:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

COgden's perfectly capable of answering for himself, and I deeply respect his knowledge of early Mormonism. But this article's about Joseph Smith, not COgden. You say a section of this article is a "biased smear" against Joseph Smith. Then do your own research in reliable sources to refute the "smear." Bring your findings here, and the whole community can discuss it together, Mormon and non-Mormon.--John Foxe (talk) 19:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

John Foxe. I agree this article is about Joseph Smith. I expressed concern its treatment is myopic and requested support from COgden. You are the one making an issue out of it. And again, imperatives are poor form. I won't be bullied out of the discussion. It does not belong to you.--Canadiandy talk 19:34, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

You believe COgden's treatment of Smith is myopic, and so, instead of doing your own research, your solution is to go to COgden for assistance because of his "deep understanding"?--John Foxe (talk) 19:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I mistyped. I meant to type that the article's treatment is myopic. I never meant to attribute the section to COgden. If not for your cynicism I would never have caught it. Thanks.--Canadiandy talk 22:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to dignify attacks on my faith, Canadiandy, but suffice it to say that you profoundly misunderstand me if you think I believe Smith was unethical. Quite the opposite: I think that contrary to the uninformed popular view, Smith was deeply ethical, but his ethics were not the same ethics as yours and mine, or most other people who lived after the turn of the 20th century. Many people who do not understand someone's ethics presume that they have no ethics, which is why 19th century Americans incorrectly and ethnocentrically believed that polygamous Mormon men were simply lechers or predators, and many older writers assumed Smith was a sociopath, and some still do. But enough about my views. I hope you will spend less time questioning the motives of editors, and more time working to improve the article in accordance with Wikipedia policy. COGDEN 00:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if this will make you smile or cry, but on a lighter note I thought I'd include it.

Using Wikipedia to Push your Agenda (for Dummies)

Step 1. Find a subject you disagree with and spend years researching anything that is critical of your subject.

Step 2. Identify yourself as neutral and an expert on the subject based on the fact you are not sympathetic with it.

Step 3. Forge all of the critical literature you have read into organized paragraphs.

Step 4. Accuse anyone who opposes your position of having a point of view. This works especially well if you use the TLA (three letter acronym) ‘POV’ over and over.

Step 5. Every now and then make a minor compromise but then follow it up a couple days later with an even more negative attack on your subject.

Step 6. When anyone questions your article defend it by attributing what you wrote to the “experts” you have referenced. Identify them as prominent and peer-reviewed (code words for odd academics who write fan mail to each other).

Step 7. If anyone persists in questioning the balance of your article, throw up a smokescreen by accusing them as having a ‘fringe’ position, or better yet try and throw them off their message by accusing them of not having contributed enough peer-reviewed research. Remember, it doesn’t count as peer-reviewed if the peers are from a sympathetic University or group. That would be a POV problem.

Step 8. If anyone questions fellow cynical contributors, rather than addressing the concern, come to their defense by accusing that questioner of bias.

Step 9. If anyone uses logic that opposes your position, accuse them of breaking Wiki-etiquette somewhere (even if so doing is itself breaking wiki-etiquette). Anything underlined in blue is especially useful because it gives you both the appearance of being courteous (you are just trying to help). And obviously if the link is a Wiki rule you must be in the right because Wikipedia reigns supreme.

Step 10. Filibuster, filibuster, filibuster. Eventually your opponents will tire of this and leave in frustration giving you both the upper hand in the article and the appearance of a senior or controlling editor.

Hope it never happens here.--Canadiandy talk 07:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Done away with horrendous bias in the lead paragraph

I have removed portions of the lead paragraph included only to push a certain Anti-Mormon agenda, I would be thankful if that were not reverted. It seems this article only actually presents, mentions and even gives relevance to information which is critical of Joseph Smith. Having left this page alone for months, I return to find that it has even bigger Anti-LDS tone and bias to it than ever! It is seriously out of order that this should be allowed to happen and I will not stand for it anylonger. Routerone (talk) 14:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any problems with how it reads now. How did I miss the changes? It looks like a lot of cynics are editing without discussion here first. Glad to see you are doing it the right way, Routerone.It may turn back into an edit war and blocking but at least you are playing by the rules even if others aren't. --Canadiandy talk 17:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

It was undue negative weight in detail and thus it was written almost from an entirely critical point of view mentioning nothing about his prophethood or positive achievements. It instead accused him of being a "theocrat" and gave heavy weight to "folk magic" and stuff. I am playing by the rules, WP:BOLD I have a right to change the page and improve it. It is them who are reverting without rationale and trying to control the page. I will stand up to this as much as I possibly can! Routerone (talk) 17:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I reverted. I don't see how "He was also a theocrat, politician, city planner, military leader, and polygamist" is biased or anti-Mormon, and the article text (not to mention the sources) supports these labels. Having it in the lede helps the reader understand the various facets of the man beyond simply founding a religion.

Routerone's addition of how adherents view him is reasonable, but redundant since that's already mentioned in the last paragraph of the lede. (Also, the possessive pronoun is "whose", not "who's", which is a contraction of "who is" or "who has".)

The treasure-seeking bit is perhaps the most justifiably omitted from the lede on the basis of undue weight (compared to how much text is devoted to the translation of the Book of Mormon, or the founding of the church), and its implication-by-juxtaposition that the golden plates were just another episode of treasure-seeking. But the mention of the folk religion background in Smith's early years is helpful and doesn't seem to lead the reader to any particular conclusion.

I've been critical of John Foxe's article ownership and efforts to promote his personal views, but I don't like the passive-aggressive behavior coming from Canadiandy and Routerone either. Slow down, talk things over, don't get heated, and see if there's some common ground. alanyst 18:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that the aggressive efforts of John Foxe can only be balanced if we take them head on. I would like to sit back but whenever I do something else is sneaked through and we end up taking on an ongoing filibuster for control. I propose we revert back to Routerone's edit (which is just an earlier state). Does anyone have any neutrality issues with the way the Routerone revert read? I propose we act boldly, leave the revert, and then discuss the revert here if there are any problems with bias. --Canadiandy talk 18:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Analyst, I have given some thought to your not seeing how "He was also a theocrat, politician, city planner, military leader, and polygamist" is biased. I completely agree that at first blush the sentence appears unbiased. But much of the problem at the article is not the facts, but how they are organized and manipulated to create a cynical tone. It is not what is said, but what is missing that is the huge problem. Instead of identifying Joseph Smith as a leader loved by his fellow church members, or as a dedicated father, or a religious leader who recorded numerous complex and progressive doctrines, he is excused away as merely some kind of eclectic politician (and don't forget another opportunity to wave the polygamy flag). The deeper I look into this the more apparent it is that there is a great deal of spin and message management going on. All we are asking for is that, as an individual of religious importance to millions of LDS people, the subject of Joseph Smith be afforded a little dignity. I doubt Luther, Moses, or Martin Luther King would be so maligned. And if they are, I would speak out against that too. --Canadiandy talk 23:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Concerns with an editor's behavior should be brought up with that editor on their talk page, or presented with evidence in a user conduct Request for Comment for community input. Tit-for-tat editing or retaliation for perceived infractions is simply battleground behavior, and reflects more poorly on the editor who engages in it than those they are trying to thwart.

The correct type of dignity to afford the subject of Joseph Smith is an honest effort to dispassionately summarize the reliable scholarship and the notable points of view regarding that subject. Efforts to expose the perfidy, or to glorify the memory, or to highlight the hypocrisy, or to praise the character, of the man—these are not honest efforts to make the article encyclopedic, but are improper POV pushing and whether pro or con, they insult the subject and/or reader of the article.

The difficult fact to accept is that the article has to be based largely on academic scholarship, regardless of whether that scholarship as a whole has a skeptical or critical bias. This is hard to swallow for people who expect to see their personal views given more airtime, so to speak, but it's the only realistic way to write an open encyclopedia. A while back I started (and, alas, did little more than start) an essay about different forms of article bias. The main idea was to identify those biases that could (should) be controlled by Wikipedia policy, and those that cannot. Much of what Routerone and Canadiandy have complained about seems to be based on "the POV inherent in the sources used in the article", to quote my nascent essay. To a large degree, if one is unhappy with the general tone or conclusions of scholarship on a particular subject, one is likely to be unhappy with a well-written Wikipedia article on that subject.

Of course, sources can be cherry-picked and carefully manipulated to lead the reader to certain conclusions, and this is a bias that can (should) be countered. It's tough, though, because to do so one must show that the sources are being misrepresented, and this means that one has to argue from the sources. Without it, it comes across as merely complaining that the scholarship doesn't align with your personal point of view. Part of the reason that COgden and John Foxe are such dominant voices here is that they both argue from the sources, which carries a lot of weight (as indeed it should). They may or may not be putting their own interpretation on the sources, but the only way to tell is to check the sources oneself and show how they are being (mis)represented.

To the extent that John Foxe, COgden, B Fizz, Canadiandy, Storm Rider, Routerone, or any other regular here is making an honest effort to reflect the balance of the reliable sources and notable points of view, I support them. To the extent they regard their own personal view of Joseph Smith as the only legitimate or supportable one, and obstruct efforts to include differing points of view or scholarly conclusions, I object to their involvement in the article.

Sorry to expound at length, but I see the mistrust and anger growing and this will become an arbitration-level conflict if editors all around don't start treating each other as colleagues rather than adversaries. I tried to get a high-level discussion going of a vision for this article to help guide discussions and provide a foundation of mutual trust, but only a few regulars participated and that conversation died out. I hope it's not too late, though, for some reconciliation to be made and a working relationship to be re-established, where we acknowledge our differences and continue to debate and discuss but there's an undercurrent of mutual trust that nobody is trying to make the article tell just their side of the story. alanyst 02:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes and no. The issue here is that references are cherry-picked for a negative slant. Then there is the occaision error in a disalignment between reference and article statement. The only way these efforts are to be countered is for concerned editors to put forth the effort to glean other references that broaden, expand the controversial nature of the article. Unless one is willing to put forth the effort there is not a lot of room to complain. When references are found and inserted into the article that is where the contention may develop and that is where ownership may raise its head. At that point things get a little more interesting and there is not a clear path. It becomes solely an event of "consensus" sometimes it looks like majority rule and other times it just looks like who can hang on the longest and overwhelm all opposing views. -^StormRider 06:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

You're pretty much right, analyst. Thanks for taking the time. The reality is that John Foxe and COgden are far more versed in the cynical research and so it puts us at a disadvantage in any attempts to balance things out. And yes, we get pretty grumpy and mean-spirited over it. I think things recently got ramped up a bit after I made an appeal to COgden for support in presenting some of the positive elements of Joseph Smith's context. Not sure why that caused such a problem. I applaud your efforts to seek arbitration or a block on the article. As bad as it is, it seems to be only getting worse because we can't keep up to the sheer volume of edits. I'm sorry if I am too involved here, but every time I present an improvement it opens the floodgates of attack from the anti-Mormon contributors, and I refuse to be bullied out of here. Please notice that the last time we had a block, the second it was lifted John Foxe came storming out of the gates with his Fanny Alger issue. Kind of makes reconciliation hard. I'm all for a permanent ban on this article for Myself, Stormrider, Routerone, John Foxe and COgden (and please keep an eye out for sockpuppets should that happen). I think a new crew would bring a much more respectful tone to this article, because I don't think it could get much worse. If that should happen, would you please keep an eye on it. You seem to be the only neutral voice here. --Canadiandy talk 16:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

@Alanyst, I appreciate and agree with your thoughtful analysis above. COGDEN 09:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Live Light edits

Really? I added something that I felt was constructive to the article, and you reverted it because it is "a waste of words." Please, you do NOT own the Joseph Smith, Jr. article. Nobody owns anything on Wikipedia, and your ownership issues are, I feel, getting a little frustrating. You do not seem to allow anyone to write anything that may put Joseph Smith in a positive light, such as his opposition to animal cruelty, which I feel would be a very good thing to add to the "Ethics and behavior" section of his article. Please consider lightening up and allowing others to give their feedback every once in awhile. Thank you. Live Light (talk) 14:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The Joseph Smith article is (by Wikipedia standards) overly long. We need to shorten it where possible, one of my goals here. That Smith chose Rigdon as his running mate for his presidential campaign is tangential at best.

There's nothing wrong with the animal cruelty material per se; it just needs to be cited to a reliable source, not an LDS Church publication.--John Foxe (talk) 14:44, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for clearing that up. I will try to find a reliable source. I apologize. Although I do feel that adding the information about Sidney Rigdon as Smith's running mate needs to be there, no matter what. That is very useful information. Anyone doing research on Joseph Smith's political endeavors will want to know that. (For example, I am writing a paper on Smith's presidential campaign and political ideas. If I did not know who he chose as his running mate, Wikipedia would probably be the first place I would check, prior to other confirming sources. But I would be confused if it was not there.) Live Light (talk) 15:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)\

Adding Rigdon to a footnote would be fine. But if you're writing a paper on Smith's presidential campaign and political ideas, you should start with Bushman and work from his references. Wikipedia should just be the place to find out about major sources like Bushman, Brodie, etc. We old guys are always going to prefer authoritative printed sources to on-line encyclopedias.--John Foxe (talk) 16:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The article does not reflect true fact, instead it reflects the Historical interpretation, spin, presentation and opinion of John Foxe. It's so deceptive and ill wrote it is indeed hideous. It's just one big attack on Joseph Smith rather than a meaningful presentation on who he was and what he achieved. Routerone (talk) 18:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Joseph Smith is most known for being a "Prophet!"

It's almost like it's not allowed for the word "Prophet" to be attached to this article in the lead paragraph. It's as if his claim of being a prophet must be censored and denied as much as possible!

Joseph Smith is remembered by all his followers around the world and even those who do not believe for his claim to be a Prophet. This is what makes him the most notable, not POV motivated rubbish like "Theocrat", etc. I think its important this is kept and not "spun" and denied to represent something different. He is known the very most out of all things for being a claimed prophet and if it were not for that nothing else in his life would be even distinctly relevant, his entire legacy and History is built upon that very claim. If you remove that then really his whole life wouldn't matter, because everything he did was based upon his prophethood claims! so how can you possibly deny or remove that from the lead paragraph? It's simply not fair or neutral or even representative if that is not given a distinct mention!

Moreover, articles on individuals such as Muhammed, Isaiah, etc, mention them in the lead paragraph as what their legacy is most remembered for, claims of being prophets. Joseph Smith is no different, stop writing this article to represent him as something he is not and stop trying to re-write History! Routerone (talk) 18:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you will find he is most remembered as a polygamist.--Charles (talk) 20:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

He was most remembered for being a prophet. His polygamy stemmed from his very legacy and authority of claiming to be a prophet. As does everything else. Him claiming to be a prophet is the keystone factor of his life. Routerone (talk) 21:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Routerone, I reworded the intro to reflect not only that he was "considered" a prophet, but was indeed a capital 'p' Prophet of the Latter Day Saint movement. As an added bonus it make the intro much less wordy.--Canadiandy talk 03:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I reverted. I'm sorry to do so since you've expressed frustration with being reverted, but calling him a prophet in the voice of Wikipedia, even with a capital 'P' to try to denote it as a title rather than an acclamation, still strays too far into non-neutrality. The capitalization approach is too subtle and nonstandard for the casual reader to read it as a neutral term. alanyst 04:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Good point, analyst. But to most LDS the title is meaningful as a presiding office. It suggests the role of presiding authority. In fact, today, each of the 15 Apostles are recognized as prophets, but only the presiding apostle or 'President' of the church is referred by the identifier as 'The Prophet'. But I also see your point about how the term is not as commonly understood as say the title 'Pope' for example. So how about "...American religious leader, founder, and Prophet (title) of the..."?--Canadiandy talk 05:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Canadiandy1, it's more about the term in mainstream use (i.e., outside of Mormon culture), and Wikipedia tends to have a bias against proper nouns. I haven't read it carefully yet, but this would be the section: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Religions.2C_deities.2C_philosophies.2C_doctrines_and_their_adherents. Yes, note there is an entire section on capital letters- that should show you how central it is to Wikipedia. Also, have you seen the previous discussions on use of prophet in the lede here in the talk pages? I remember it has come up, that the consensus was to keep it out of the lede, but I don't remember why or anything. Let me know and I'd be happy to look for it. tedder (talk) 05:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

@Canadiandy, the Mormon practice of referring to the current LDS President as "The Prophet" did not really happen until the 20th century. Smith was certainly the Mormon prophet in a descriptive sense (although that phrasing is arguably problematic in Wikipedia), but from a historical perspective he was much more than a prophet. I think the status quo, before all the recent changes, was a pretty good summary of the most notable things that he was. His role as a theocrat is very important, and I think that is a neutral term. As to the term prophet, that's an important part of the religious interpretation of Smith, and a critical part of the "impact" section. COGDEN 09:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Prophet in the lede

Routerone has made changes that remove the other definitions of Smith, replacing it with "Who's[sic] adherents regard him as a Prophet." I modified the lede to include mention of 'prophet' but to include the other "hats" that Smith wore. Please comment on the versions ("original", "routerone", "tedder") here rather than continuing to revert. I have no preferred version; my version is intended as a compromise to encourage discussion and discourage editwarring. tedder (talk) 18:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Read post above please I mentioned it there Routerone (talk) 19:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I support Tedder's version. It's appropriate to mention that in the first paragraph of the lede since it's the defining claim of Smith's life and the basis for his following. alanyst 19:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Tedder's version is fine, but I think the original is better. (No one's mentioned Routerone's stealth attempt to remove the sentence about Joseph Smith's practice of folk religion, which is a more significant deletion.)--John Foxe (talk) 19:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I was trying to get the ball rolling rather than endorse a specific version. There are objections on both sides, but you are both (Routerone, Foxe) at or past the line of edit warring. Let the "wrong" version stand, discuss it here, don't make personal attacks. tedder (talk) 19:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

John Foxe, your accusing Routerone of "stealth" removals is uncalled for and inflammatory.--Canadiandy talk 01:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't object to Tedder's lede, though the old one was fine too. COGDEN 09:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Note this has been removed. I'm good either way, does it need further discussion? tedder (talk) 21:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Routerone re-added the phrase. Smith being regarded as a prophet is already treated in the final paragraph of the lead.--John Foxe (talk) 02:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Theocrat= POV

Claims of Joseph Smith being a Theocrat is an extreme POV statement to have made and a largely unfounded one made on false premises, often requiring a selective and ghastly spin of information for one to reach such a conclusion.

If I am not mistaken, Joseph Smith was very fond of Democracy and the U.S Constitution and if you argue he is a fraud then the pro-Democratic teachings within the Book of Mormon would be his if it were "false" of course. Labelling him a "Theocrat" is dishonest. I won't allow it to stay in the article. Routerone (talk) 19:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Routerone, I agree it is an extreme POV. I also agree it is a likely attempt at spin. Joseph Smith wrote (Wentworth Letter) "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates..." Strange words for a Theocrat. But I will suggest you rephrase your statement, "I won't allow it to stay in the article." That lowers you to the level of those who may think they have ownership, and I would hope you are above that. Personally, I will put forth appropriate effort to see it does not stay in the article. --Canadiandy talk 01:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to understand the complaint better, because I can interpret it two possible ways. One is that Routerone might be arguing that Joseph Smith was not at all a theocrat, in the sense of "a person who advocates a system of government based on religion". The other is that he might be arguing that Joseph Smith was not exclusively a theocrat, but that in addition to his promotion of theocracy he also promoted democracy and specifically the U.S. Constitution; thus to label him a theocrat would be a distortion or oversimplification of more complex views. Routerone, does one of these interpretations fit your argument better? alanyst 03:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me Joseph Smith was the quintessential American. He viewed the best form of government as one founded on a constitution and democratic principles, but ideally a nation which was "One nation under God". Unless one would call the American government system a theocracy, Joseph Smith isn't one either. Naturally he viewed the organization of the Church as a theocracy, but what religions out there don't? If there is anything to be said about his political ideology it is that he was a strong proponent of the US Constitution. In fact I've reworded the article to reflect this point. Is there any research to the contrary? Could someone add a link to the Constitution?--Canadiandy talk 03:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Canadiandy. I appreciate your input. I'm still interested in Routerone's take since he put forth the initial objections. But since you've responded, I'll ask you a follow-up question: are your characterizations of Joseph Smith's political views based on any particular sources, especially ones that would be considered reliable by Wikipedia standards? (This is not meant as a leading or skeptically posed question, but an effort to help you frame your arguments in ways that will resonate with the Wikipedia community.)

The approach you're taking, making factual statements founded on personal belief and asking for research to the contrary, is not the right way to go about it. Otherwise, someone could make an absurd statement like "Joseph Smith was a world-renowned trapeze artist" and insist that it be accepted since no research existed to prove the contrary. Without source-based justification of your statements, I'm afraid your changes cannot be accepted. I am therefore reverting. alanyst 04:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

To quote Bushman from the Pew Forum on Religious and Public Life (May 14, 2007) titled "Mormonism and Politics: Are They Compatible?" (linked from http://pewforum.org/Politics-and-Elections/Mormonism-and-Politics-Are-They-Compatible.aspx)

"Smith was forced into politics by the abuse that the Mormons received. As soon as they were driven out of their first city site in Independence, Mo., he turned to the government for redress. He never obtained it. No level of government, from local justices of the peace to governors to the president of the United States – to whom he constantly appealed – ever came to the defense of the Saints. But Joseph Smith became a great devotee of constitutional rights because they seemed like his only hope. He said some very extravagant things about the Constitution being God-given because of those rights and became quite conversant in constitutional matters."

Also, Joseph Smith recorded the following professed revelation, "I [God] established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose" (Doctrine and Covenants 101:80)

Thanks for your helpful input, and for being fair-minded. Can my edit be restored? Thanks.--Canadiandy talk 04:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm of two minds about that source. I think it's a great summary of Joseph Smith's political views from a recognized scholar, and on that basis I think it merits careful consideration. Its weakness is that it's not a peer-reviewed publication, but rather a report of a moderated interview that Bushman gave to the Pew Forum. That doesn't mean that his statements are unreliable or unscholarly, but that there was no opportunity for other scholars to evaluate or respond to his claims. If he was summarizing his research from Rough Stone Rolling, then it would be better to use RSR as a source for your changes instead since that work did undergo a reliable review process.

If we assume for the moment that the source is reliable enough for use in the article, then the question is how it should fit into the article. Was Joseph Smith known as an advocate for the Constitution, to a similar or greater degree than he was known as an advocate of theocracy? Bushman himself states later in the interview, "Joseph Smith's word for his own political philosophy was 'theo-democracy': God and the people." This seems to be a nuanced view, not landing squarely in a theocratic nor secular-democratic camp.

That nuance leads me to think that mentioning his political philosophy in the lede at all is too susceptible to oversimplification. On that basis, I propose that "theocrat" and Canadiandy's wording both be omitted, and left for the article body to address.

I'll act on my proposal without prejudice to alternate approaches, and invite further comment by all. alanyst 04:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Sounds fair. I'll look around for more sourcing. Again, thanks for being fair.--Canadiandy talk 05:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm wondering if "theocrat" is being taken in the a different sense. I saw rumblings that "politician" was seen as anti-Smith too. Smith certainly had political aspirations and wanted to make a religious utopia, yes? I mean, that idea is a theocracy. I'm wondering if there is connotation being attached to the word, not the idea. And I'm seeking clarification, not divisiveness. I'm hoping Canadiandy1 and Routerone (and others) can tell me where my assumption is incorrect. tedder (talk) 05:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

If we could use Smith's own term for his political theory, it would be theodemocracy, which was a theocratic monarchy presiding over a subordinate democratic legislature, the king having the final word on all matters. But that word is a neologism, and therefore it is inappropriate for the lede. The word theocracy, however, is equally correct, and is the best word available to describe Smith's political ideology. The term is the most frequently-used term in the literature to describe Smith's government and governmental theory, both by Mormon and non-Mormon writers. Moreover, Smith used the term himself, at least once, in a positive sense to describe an ideal holy utopian monarchy. We can call Smith a politician, but leaving out the crucial fact that he was also a theocratic ruler is an serious omission. Besides, COGDEN 10:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with COGDEN. Although I don't consider omission of "theocrat" a crucial loss to the lead, it seems logical by the same measure to eliminate the word "politician," which suggests running against opponents, stump speaking, kissing babies, and the like—not commanding obedience, threatening dissidents, and ordering the destruction of a newspaper.--John Foxe (talk) 10:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

John, it would be less disruptive to a collegial atmosphere if you could refrain from taking every opportunity to aim jabs at Joseph Smith, which simply invites further combativeness from his sympathizers. It's akin to a hypothetical person regularly inserting rhetoric lambasting the pope into their comments at Talk:Catholic Church. It's become more frequent here in the past few months and is crossing the line drawn by WP:SOAP.

Your politician argument is a strawman since you're using distorted depictions of what politicians do, and of what Smith did, to exaggerate the distinction. I think "politician" is pretty uncontroversial: he was the mayor of Nauvoo, he exercised political influence, he ran for president of the United States. It's a much broader term than "theocrat" and thus more applicable even if Joseph Smith doesn't fit a particular stereotype of politicians. alanyst 13:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Smith's status as a politician doesn't fit the stereotype. He was a self-appointed mayor, he exercised political influence by commanding block votes of followers who believed him a prophet, and he ran a quixotic campaign for president that largely demonstrated his growing megalomania. Furthermore, few American politicians have been able to order the destruction of an opposition newspaper.

I've always tried to be civil here. I'm irenic by temperament. But as the only non-Mormon (other than A Sniper, who's a descendant) that regularly contributes here, I have a responsibility to represent the vast majority of informed readers of English who've rejected the claims of Joseph Smith. There will be precious few bouquets thrown my way, but that comes with territory.--John Foxe (talk) 14:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't like plitician because, except for being Mayor of a city which he didn't really campaign for, he was only a political candidate for President, and that for a very short time due to his being killed.--Canadiandy talk 14:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I support Canadiandy's position and urge the removal of the word "politician."--John Foxe (talk) 15:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Very well, I have removed it since there seems to be a weak consensus for doing so. alanyst 21:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Analyst.--Canadiandy talk 05:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Commanding obedience? Are you talking about Joseph Smith or someone else. I thought Smith was the fellow who said I teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves? He was also the fellow who said one of the first principles of heaven is the free-agency of each human being. You see, Foxe, it is when you distort history and twist reality that many of us refuse to "throw bouquets", rather we tend to reject most of what you say because we know you have a private agenda rather than any desire to "tell the truth" about Joseph Smith. As an aside, BY was far more likely to command obedience than Smith. Smith was anything but an autocrat. If you chose to follow him great, if not, that was fine too. As far as he was concerned it was your own choice and no one else's. That is reality and that is the truth about this individual regardless of your personal opinion. -^StormRider 15:02, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Stormrider, I'm far more shocked at Foxe's accusing Joseph Smith of a "growing megalomania." I wanted to be sure that word was as biased a term as I thought it was at first. It means; "A psychopathological condition characterized by delusional fantasies of wealth, power, or omnipotence." I then looked up 'irenic.' Which means "Aiming or aimed at peace." Unless John Foxe has mixed up his definitions (Joseph Smith would actually be the most deserving of the term 'irenic') it seems that accusing the religious leader of a large faith group of being pathologically delusional is as far from irenic as one can get. It reminds me of the line from the movie "The Princess Bride" where Inigo Montoya says, "You keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means." Sorry John Foxe, if your aim is building peace, you are way off your game right now. --Canadiandy talk 17:31, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

At least you've learned two new words.--John Foxe (talk) 02:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

"Folk Religion" in lede confusing.

If the term folk religion means, "...consist[ing] of ethnic or regional religious customs under the umbrella of an organized religion", then it seems there should be a little more information given. What was the organized religion? Was this 'Christian folk religion?' Was it a combination of regional beliefs of specific sects (i.e. Methodist and Presbyterian)? For now I will add the qualifier that he practiced a "Christian folk religion." I still don't like it, but it's an improvement until we can correct it fully.--Canadiandy talk 03:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the intent of this term was to allude to Smith's use of peep stones for finding treasure. Critics of Smith feel this was a major event in Smith younger days; others see it as having little to do with his actual functioning of his religious life. However, the rub comes in that there were eyewitnesses to Smith using these stones during the translation process. Smith said very little of his translation process other than he found the Urim & Thummim with the plates and the translated them by the gift and power of God. Given the accounts of using the stones it has been assumed that no other process of translation was used. If he did use the U&T why revert to the stones? No one has really proferred a guess that I have read. I have read LDS writers who say it is unthinkable that he would, but they also have not answered some of the accounts regarding the stones. -^StormRider 09:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Canadiandy, to understand what folk religion means in this context, you need to take a look at Quinns's Early Mormonism and the Magic World View (1998). There was nothing particularly "Christian" about the magical practices in which the Smith family participated, and clergymen of all denominations took regular swipes at its practice.--John Foxe (talk) 13:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Then which religious movement was this a folk religion of? Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism? It seems to me that clergyman of all denominations took swipes at Joesph Smith too, that doesn't mean he wasn't Christian. --Canadiandy talk 14:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The Smiths' folk religion was a kind of paganism. John L. Brooke, The Refiner's Fire: The Making of Mormon Cosmology, 1644-1844 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996)—not a scintillating read, by the way—traces the folk religion of the Smith family's time and place to the "hermetic thought" of "Greco-Roman Egypt, where ancient metallurgical traditions were fused with Platonism, Gnosticism, and Egyptian theology. Passing from Islamic sources at the turn of the twelfth century, fragments of the hermetic philosophy emerged in medieval Europe in the form of alchemy."(8) I think that's a stretch, but Brooke's an authority, so his opinion is, for Wikipedia purposes, absolute truth unless it can countered by another authority. And nothing written by LDS apologists or published by the LDS Church is, for Wikipedia purposes, authoritative.--John Foxe (talk) 02:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, it sounds like there might be confusion between the so-called folk religion the Smith family practiced and the traditions some in his community used to explain their gold divining. The way it reads seems to suggest that Joseph Smith went to some localized church sect where he worshiped Ra the Sun God. I don't buy in to the allusion that Joseph and his family sat up all night praying to the polytheistic Gods of the Greco-Roman and Egyptian peoples. The way the "authorities" seem to be pointing is that local gold-diggers embraced a variety of religious traditions. It is a big leap to assume that Joseph or his family embraced most (if any) of these systems. Still, present biased wording seems to continue on the tradition of painting Joseph Smith as some money-grubbing, cultist. In the same approach, since the most common writings of our culture are found in the Harry Potter and Twilight genres, and since we all write here from time to time, then we are by association, Satanists. Even the "experts" only theorize that Joseph Smith may have bought into these complex belief systems. So we are left with information which is speculative at best, unclear as to any influence, and unrelated to the actual writings, work, or teachings of Joseph Smith. At best this stuff is only worth a footnote, so I am confused as to how anyone could argue including this information prominently in the opening paragraphs is neutral.

Also, John Foxe, I never questioned Brooke's role as an academic authority. So I'm not sure why you needed to write that his "opinion is, for Wikipedia purposes, absolute truth...". And thanks for reminding me that "nothing written by LDS apologists or published by the LDS Church is, for Wikipedia purposes, authoritative." I don't remember of course quoting an LDS source on this one, but I won't complain about you taking another chance to point out the inherent weaknesses of Wikipedia sourcing and how it is discriminatory towards Mormon researchers and authorities. Personally I will assume good faith and look forward to the day that this religious insensitivity can be corrected, but for now I will concede your right to continue your crusade for a brave new world where the academics define our faiths.--Canadiandy talk 04:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Folk religion is not the best word, but it was a compromise long ago. The best word is magic, which is the word most commonly used in the literature. It's not really fair to try to associate Smith's type of magic with its historical religious roots, such as paganism, Hermeticism, Sumerianism, or Judaism. By the time Smith practiced it, magical practices and beliefs like astrology, seership, dowsing, and the use of talismans were as Christian as they were anything else. Smith was a Christian, and he incorporated the magic, from whatever source, into his religious worldview. In that sense, his magic is no less Christian than such originally pagan and Jewish magical practices as exorcism, faith healing, glossolalia, use of holy water, etc.--other than the fact that pagan magical practices like exorcism have been incorporated by Christians for much longer than things like crystal gazing. COGDEN 11:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's try the phrase "folk magic" and see if there are objections.--John Foxe (talk) 11:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

What proof exists that Joseph Smith practiced these beliefs? It is not enough just to say that his family searched for gold, and that many gold-searchers around practiced "folk" magic, therefore Joseph Smith practiced folk magic. Even if authorities speculate such it is deceptive to state such as truth. As to the word magic, at best it should be identified as 'folk superstition' (unless one is trying to malign Joseph Smith) because as far as I know, magic is not real.--Canadiandy talk 15:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

All authorities agree that the Smiths practiced folk magic. For purposes of Wikipedia, what you or I say as editors may be speculation; what authorities say is absolutely true. It makes no difference whether an editor's intent is to praise of malign Joseph Smith. What counts is what authoritative sources say. In this case, they all say that the Smith family practiced folk magic.--John Foxe (talk) 21:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

But what authorities speculate is still speculation. To phrase it any differently is deceptive. So which researcher 'knows' that Joseph Smith believed that Pagan chants to the God Mercury would help him find Gold? Their evidence?--Canadiandy talk 00:39, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "truth" on Wikipedia; in fact, our purpose as editors is the acknowledgment that all we do is report what reliable references exist for a given topic. The truth of what they say absent from everything we do; there is no judgment of their statements, opinions, or speculations. It is preferred to note when an expert is speculating. Historians who think they are capable of seeing into the mind of a historical figure and reporting that to the world is a modern activity that some historians have chosen to delve into. As soon as they do so, they stop being historians and take on the role of a psychiatrist and none of them are qualified for such a role. Those types of comments should be used sparingly and when they are used, they should be noted as this is this author's speculation or guess. Cheers, -^StormRider 13:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Authoritative sources are "true" for Wikipedia purposes unless it can be shown that they're in conflict with other authoritative sources. Academic sources, such as Brooke (which I myself often find a stretch) can speculate to their hearts content as well as practice psychiatry on the dead. So long as their material is peer-reviewed, published by a scholarly press, etc., their speculation is gospel unless another authoritative source can be brought into evidence in opposition. --John Foxe (talk) 23:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Location of "prophet"

I'd like to discuss the location of the "prophet" phrase. It's already in the last paragraph of the lead, why does it have to be in the first sentence?--John Foxe (talk) 21:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Because he more well known as being considered a prophet of the Latter Day Saint movement than almost any other item in the first paragraph, especially city planner and military leader. It makes more sense to have it in the first paragraph than the last. 72Dino (talk) 21:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't bother me so long as it doesn't appear twice.--John Foxe (talk) 21:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. 72Dino (talk) 21:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks pretty good, but the change of tense in the same sentence is a bit odd. "Smith was...who is regarded..." ...comments? ~BFizz 07:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Magical practitioners

I disagree with the attempt to add an unnuanced statement about Smith's religion. What's notable about the Smith family is that they were practitioners of folk magic. Attempts to make them sound conventionally religious come later, after Joseph's death.--John Foxe (talk) 21:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I was the one who deleted the initial "having practiced folk magic in his youth" sentence. I explained in the delete that JS's magical practices are well discussed in the section immediately following, so putting it in the first paragraph is giving it undue weight in a section that is supposed to be more general.

My delete was reverted without explanation; consequently, I revert it back. Discussion is welcome.Kant66 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC).

Smith was still treasure hunting through magical means when he is said to have found the golden plates. This information is essential to understanding the context in which the events occurred. (You can sign your posts by typing four tildes at the end.)--John Foxe (talk) 00:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

On a slightly side note regarding edit summaries, indicating "see talk page" in the edit summary, with the explanation on this page as it is above, should be not be reverted with the edit summary "removal content without explanation" (see this diff). There is an explanation and readers are directed to it. If you want to revert him for another reason then that's different. Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 01:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Kant66, don't worry so much about the 4 tilde thing (and a tilde is the squiggle on top of the key to the left of the '1' key on your standard keyboard). I can't speak for everyone else but to me it's trivial. What is far more of a wiki-etiquette problem is the lack of discussion before reverting that some have shown. Also, if you continue to try to improve upon correcting the bias problem in this article, you will be quickly bombarded with "blue script." That is a blue link designed to correct your approach according to the almighty Wiki rules. From my experience, those who quote them most are the ones who are trying most to push an agenda. Kind of the statistics parallel to the fact that people who quote statistics are usually trying to manipulate you. It's really condescending and should only be taken seriously when received by contributors who show kindness (i.e. who don't revert without discussion). The key here, don't be bullied out like a great many in the past. It's been so bad in the past there was even a newspaper article about it (see top of this page or . "Wiki Wars: In battle to define beliefs, Mormons and foes wage battle on Wikipedia" http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700105517/).--Canadiandy talk 01:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

JohnFoxe. It is interesting that you keep trying to push the term 'magic.' According to FAIRMORMON; "In 1990, Cambridge University published Stanley Tambiah's Magic, Science, Religion, and the Scope of Rationality, which showed that the definitions of many of the most important writers on "magic" were heavily influenced both by their backgrounds and their personal ideological agendas: they defined "magic" as religious beliefs other than their own. In 1992, the International Interdisciplinary Conference on Magic in the Ancient World failed to come to any agreement on what "magic" was. The plenary speaker, Jonathan Z. Smith, in particular voiced strong opinions: "I see little merit in continuing the use of the substantive term "magic" in second-order, theoretical, academic discourse. We have better and more precise scholarly taxa for each of the phenomena commonly denoted by "magic" which, among other benefits, create more useful categories for comparison. For any culture I am familiar with, we can trade places between the corpus of materials conventionally labeled "magical" and corpora designated by other generic terms (e.g., healing, divining, execrative) with no cognitive loss. Indeed, there would be a gain." The use of the term "magic" imposes, especially for modern Christians, a negative label at the outset, which explains its popularity for critics. As Professor of Egyptology Robert K. Ritner explained: "Modern Western terms for 'magic' function primarily as designations for that which we as a society do not accept, and which has overtones of the supernatural or the demonic (but not of the divine)." --Canadiandy talk 01:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

FAIR is LDS apologetics, not an authoritative source for Wikipedia purposes.--John Foxe (talk) 23:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

@John Foxe: I was simply summarizing the part in the "Early years" section that mentioned Joseph's religious upbringing (the family was "caught up in [the religious] excitement"; Joseph "participated in church classes and read the Bible"). It's right next to the part about folk magic and treasure seeking. An honest summary of the article ought to mention both the Protestant and folk magic influences if it's going to address Joseph Smith's formative years beyond "raised in a period of religious enthusiasm," since both influences were significantly mentioned in the reliable sources. Omitting one but dwelling on the other is distorting the story to advance a POV. alanyst 02:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

While the folk magic part needs to be included, putting it in the third sentence of the article frames everything else around it which, for a figure as historically important as Joseph Smith, is a distortion. You mentioned one theory that the folk magic was connected to the Book of Mormon, that should go in the Book of Mormon section.

If it is placed at the beginning for the purpose of familial context, then it would be fair to add something like "the folk magic of the day" since Quinn, as well as others, has pointed out that it was a prevelant practice at the time. Leaving it just at "folk magic" is misleading and makes them sound like Wiccans when the synthesizing of folk magic with Christian beliefs was fairly common in New England in the early 19th century.I thought I had signed it with the four tildes, but thanks for the reminder:) Kant66 (talk) 05:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Foxe began this section by saying that "What's notable about the Smith family is that they were practitioners of folk magic." I was under the impression that sources said this was common, rather than notable. Are there any sources that indicate that the Smiths' practicing of folk magic was above and beyond the norm of their day? ...comments? ~BFizz 07:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

A fact about Joseph Smith that shouldn't be hidden from the reader's view is that Smith was treasure seeking through occult methods at the time he claimed to have received the golden plates from an angel. If you view the article from a non-Mormon viewpoint—which I by default seem to represent here—I think you can understand why that congruence needs to be mentioned early in any biography of Joseph Smith.--John Foxe (talk) 23:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that's a fair representation at all. Claims of "magic" and "treasure hunting" are claims that are largely overspun, exaggerated and given a narrow opinion on by critics. You're trying to pass off unsubtle spin as "fact" when in reality it has little legacy or even meaning to the life of Joseph Smith. Claims of "magic" ought not to be mentioned in the lead paragraph at all. I refuse to accept your twisted view of Joseph Smith being presented as mainstream within this page, clearly, you know no honest interpretations of Smith's life. You've even completely minsinterpreted your source texts off the mark and used disproven and unreliable critical texts to make a pit out of this very page. Routerone (talk) 23:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

On what reliable source do you rely? Please explain your assertions.--John Foxe (talk) 23:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

JohnFoxe. You don't like FAIR so I'll make this simpler for you. In 1990, Cambridge University published Stanley Tambiah's Magic, Science, Religion, and the Scope of Rationality, which showed that the definitions of many of the most important writers on "magic" were heavily influenced both by their backgrounds and their personal ideological agendas: they defined "magic" as religious beliefs other than their own." In 1992, the International Interdisciplinary Conference on Magic in the Ancient World failed to come to any agreement on what "magic" was. The plenary speaker, Jonathan Z. Smith, in particular voiced strong opinions: "I see little merit in continuing the use of the substantive term "magic" in second-order, theoretical, academic discourse. We have better and more precise scholarly taxa for each of the phenomena commonly denoted by "magic" which, among other benefits, create more useful categories for comparison. For any culture I am familiar with, we can trade places between the corpus of materials conventionally labeled "magical" and corpora designated by other generic terms (e.g., healing, divining, execrative) with no cognitive loss. Indeed, there would be a gain." Professor of Egyptology Robert K. Ritner states: "Modern Western terms for 'magic' function primarily as designations for that which we as a society do not accept, and which has overtones of the supernatural or the demonic (but not of the divine)." Sorry for forgetting that experts are only reliable when they are being quoted by Non-Mormon sources.--Canadiandy talk 23:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand how these quotations are apposite to Joseph Smith. If you want to substitute "occult practices" for "folk magic," that's fine with me. What would you like to call dripping sheep's blood and peering into stones to find Indian treasure?--John Foxe (talk) 23:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Let's put it this way, the source (Quinn) you are using for these "magical" claims in the article Foxe has actually been well and truly rubbished. [1]. It ought to be pointed out that there are no primary sources at all supporting the claims you are citing from Quinn, which makes your arguments watery and somewhat unfounded upon why you are keen to prop up such disputed "facts".

the fact that Quinn could not discover a single primary source written by Latter-day Saints that makes any positive statement about magic is hardly dissuasive to a historian of Quinn's inventive capacity- William Hamblin. Routerone (talk) 23:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Nice link Routerone. I love the point that, "Quinn's tendency toward neologisms has been called "Quinn speak," a term which could even more appropriately be applied to his remarkable insistence on redefining key terms and misrepresenting his primary sources. I think that term 'Quinn speak' would reflect a lot of what has gone on in the forming of this article.--Canadiandy talk 00:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Quinn is, for Wikipedia purposes, an authority on Mormonism, peer-reviewed and published by academic presses. William Hamblin is a Mormon apologist published by FARMS and well-known for his "ad hominem attacks on those who criticize his work or the LDS church."--John Foxe (talk) 00:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

John Foxe seems to be pulling out the "peer-reviewed" justification again. I believe this is "Quinn speak" for "I like him because he doesn't like Joseph Smith and so even if his arguments are suspect and hard to support I'll stick with him".--Canadiandy talk 00:51, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

At Wikipedia, reliable sources count; ad hominems are usually less effective.--John Foxe (talk) 02:36, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

This discussion keeps on lapsing into establishing whether certain people are valid or not. Yes, D. Michael Quinn is a valid Mormon historian, and the magic involvement in the early part of Joseph Smith's life deserves discussion. However, John Foxe is attempting to put this up front and center, which, I'm sorry, is not merited in the case of somebody like Joseph Smith when there is so much to be said. His magic involvement was an issue in his early life, and deserves mention in that section, which it already has. Kant66 (talk) 03:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Quinn is a problematic reference because he can often be on the fringe. For example, he is the only individual to allude to homosexual tendencies in many of the leading members of the church during the time of Joseph Smith. Why? Because there were occasions when two men would sleep in the same bed....of course, with so few beds men and boys often slept together when traveling. Only Quinn makes this deduction on such flimsy circumstances. In this situation, he is considered fringe as he is in other areas. If a historian stands alone then he is fringe on a specific point. We need to seek the mainstream rather than fringe. -^StormRider 06:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

While I agree with StormRider in terms of Quinn often being on the fringe, the folk magic involvement is also discussed by Bushman, for whom it is difficult for me to think of an opinion on which he can be considered on "the fringe." So yes, specific conclusions might be fringey and have no place on Wikipedia, the general theme of the folk magic should be discussed; however, it is certainly not important enough (when considering his whole life) to merit a place in the lead when basic facts like his parents' religious affiliations haven't made it into there. Kant66 (talk) 16:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

"relying on revelation"

The article currently reads that JS started the KSS "relying on revelation." The sources here are Bushman (334), who makes clear here that JS never told Woodruff what the revelation was about, and Brodie (195), who identifies the revelation as a rumor that "skipped through the town." The wording of her footnote isn't clear as to whether the people who certified this statement were referring to the rumor or to the prophecy. Additionally, in referring to the KSS incident, Brigham Young explicitly identifies it as a non-revelation (J of Discourses 4: 297). Once again, while the supposed revelation might find a place in one of these longer articles, it's inclusion in the JS article is inappropriate given its arguable nature. Kant66 (talk) 08:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Clarification: KSS means Kirtland Safety Society. Took me a while to figure that out. Zashitnik (talk) 16:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

General Tone and Impartiality

It seems to me that the article at present is not in line with the Wikipedia guideline stating that;

"Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article. The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view."

Perhaps someone could take this one on, not me, I'm out of here until Foxe is gone.

--Canadiandy talk 16:43, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe that the following quote from the news article shown at the top of this page sheds good light on this matter:

"Richard L. Bushman, who is the Howard W. Hunter professor of Mormon Studies at Claremont Graduate University (Calif.), thinks the article is technically accurate in the sense that the facts are traced to documents from people in the 19th Century. 'But we have to remember that Joseph Smith was even more controversial in the 19th Century than he is now,' Bushman said. 'What I think is the real failing of this piece is that it lacks scope. It just picks its way along from one little fact to another little fact, all of them ending up making Joseph Smith an ignoble character of some kind. And it never really assesses Joseph Smith's achievement. What was the significance of this person in history? After all, he was the founder of a church that is remarkable for continuing for a couple of centuries. Yet it doesn't give you any sense of how he did that. There's no explanation of how he acquired all these followers. … The article doesn't say anything about the impact of new revelation on followers or even make much of the fact that Joseph was continually receiving revelation. So it becomes a picky piece that isn't inaccurate, but it sort of lacks depth. It ends up being shallow, I think.'"

Still, I believe that good progress has been made and will continue to be made. Zashitnik (talk) 16:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I have changed the title of this section, deleting the "rejection of LDS POV." The Wikipedia guideline emphasizes "neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view," and I believe that that is a crucial piece of information, but putting rejection of LDS POV in the heading strikes me as an easily misinterpreted phrase. Still, thank you, Canadiandy, for quoting the guideline. I wish that it had been cited earlier, before the treasure-hunting in the intro discussion was finished. Zashitnik (talk) 17:07, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Religious and political leader

I propose that we add "and political" to the lead so that it reads: "Joseph Smith, Jr. (December 23, 1805 – June 27, 1844) was an American religious and political leader, and the founder of the Latter Day Saint movement." He indeed exercised political authority and influence, and if we can say that he was a city planner, military leader, and polygamist in the lead, then this can surely be mentioned. He was better known as a political leader than any of these things (except perhaps polygamist). Note that I did not say "politician" but "political leader." I feel that there is a difference between the two. "Politician" is more of a modern term, and does not necessarily imply leadership. Smith was a leader in both a religious and political sense. I also feel that it would be significant since many of his political ideas were new and quite liberal, even for his time. His political ideas and influence were a significant part of who he was and what he did.

Also, could we add "author" to the lead? I'm not talking about him being the author of the Book of Mormon, since there are obviously very differing views on that, but he wrote a lot of material, including huge portions of the History of the Church, and other writings. Furthermore, I propose that we change "Smith's followers regard many of his writings as scripture" to "many of his writings and alleged translations" or something of the sort.

I also propose that we add, in the last paragraph, something like: "Due to the drastically opposite views of Smith's claims, actions, and character, he is often regarded as one of the most controversial figures in American history." If you disagree with that statement, I would have to ask why. It's very, very true and very, very obvious. Live Light (talk) 16:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I do not feel that "political leader" needs to be in the first sentence. It is secondary to the reason he is best known. And the proposed addition in the last paragraph seems like original research without a citation that he is one of the most controversial figures in American history. There are plenty of people that have never even heard of him. 72Dino (talk) 16:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I second 72Dino on this for the reasons he gave. Kant66 (talk) 16:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

LiveLight, Joseph Smith is controversial to his critics and respected and inspiring to others both inside and outside of the Church. Michael Jackson is controversial. Joseph Smith is at best "irenic" at worst polarizing. You will likely find that most of any controversy which does exist was self-servingly initiated and fueled by Joseph Smith's religious opponents.--Canadiandy talk 23:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

"Controversy is a state of prolonged public dispute or debate, usually concerning a matter of opinion." That fits Joseph Smith very well. 63.248.11.57 (talk) 13:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Joseph Smith and the occult

I tried to restore/rework the following two sentences of the lead, and they were reverted without explanation:

"Smith was reared in western New York during a period of religious enthusiasm by a family that both professed Christian beliefs and practiced folk magic. Smith himself claimed the ability to find buried treasure through supernatural means."

The material is endorsed by all reliable sources. It also reflects negatively on the credibility of Joseph Smith. On what grounds can it be excluded from the lead?--John Foxe (talk) 02:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I already discussed this several times. His magic involvement is amply treated in the second section, to throw that into the third sentence of the article is giving undue weight to this particular element in a section that is supposed to be a summary. I fail to see how the fact that "it reflects negatively on the credibility of Joseph Smith" has any bearing on whether it merits more a place in the introduction. It's like me putting "Bob Jones University didn't allow interracial dating until 2000," in the third sentence of the BJ article. Yes, that's cited by a reliable source, and it deserves a place in the Wikipedia article, but putting it in the very front would make it out to be an attack piece, and not a Wikipedia article. (BTW, there is a "criticism of Joseph Smith Jr." Wikipedia page if you really just need to vent.)Kant66 (talk) 03:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

(ec):It can be excluded on the basis of not being one of the article's "most important aspects" as stated in the lead section guideline. However, that is a matter of opinion. Your opinion, as I understand it, is that it is important and should be included. My opinion is that the information is not nearly as important as other facets of his life and should be left out of the lead section but continue to be included in the early years section. So where does that leave us with the Wikipedia guideline? 72Dino (talk) 03:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I can easily forget the question about whether it is in the lede (which it shouldn't be if the article is balanced) the big question is why John Foxe had to use the word 'occult' in the heading for this discussion. Time and again Foxe has shown himself to be nothing short of tactless, disrespectful, and inflammatory. Are you doing this on purpose, Foxe? At best it's thoughtless and deserves a retraction. Are you okay with this COgden?--Canadiandy talk 05:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Foxe isn't helping his cause by claiming that his wording reflects negatively on Smith. But I disagree with the premise that simply because Smith dabbled in magical arts, he must therefore lack credibility. Why so? In any event, I think that Smith's early magical career definitely merits inclusion in the lede. So much has been written on the subject, and this activity dominates what we know about his early life. The subject is also significantly tied, either directly or by indirectly, to the finding of the Book of Mormon, as it was Smith's magical seer stone by which he (by one account) found and (by all accounts) translated them. COGDEN 06:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Off-topic, ad hominem
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
COgden. So magic is tied to Joseph Smith finding the Book of Mormon? The seer stones were magical? Have you read anything about the origins of the seer stones? Would you suggest Moses parted the Red Sea by magic? That Christ used magic to raise the dead? That is as far from Mormon thought as you could get. Are you still active? The Church stopped teaching that... oh right, they never taught that.--Canadiandy talk 15:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC) Canadiandy1, stop the personal attacks/ad hominem arguments. They are unacceptable on an article talk page. Focus on the content, not the contributors. tedder (talk) 15:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC) I'm sorry if my post read as an attack. I was not attacking COgden personally, only the confusing discrepancy of his doctrinal position. COgden plainly states he is LDS, however his position seems far from what the Church teaches doctrinally. So I believe COgden can be fairly asked whether his status as LDS is that of one active in the faith. There is no judgement on him intended based on his activity, but it does help clarify his POV or balance on some issues. For those unfamiliar with LDS terminology the term 'active' is similar to the term 'practicing' though subtly different. It allows for the fact that a Mormon might still practice major principles of the religion while not necessarily attending meetings or progressing in meetings and activities. --Canadiandy talk 00:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Joseph Smith did a lot of things in addition to the BoM. He claimed to have received the restored priesthood authority, he claimed to have received revelations, claimed to have received new Abrahamic scripture, claimed to have seen God, organized a new religion whose adherants number in the millions, .... Any one of these could have aspects of them included in the lead. To throw in his early folk magic uses because of its connection to the BoM is preferencing one aspect of his life over the others, when the lead is supposed to be general. Doing it to provide early-life description would require that the folk magic practices be placed in their proper context (i.e. they were common, and he was acting in accordance with his milieu) in order to not give the false impression that he was some kind of 21st century pagan, and none of the one-off snips that I've seen thrown in about the folk magic do that.Kant66 (talk) 16:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Pedantic note: it would be 19th century, not 21st. alanyst 16:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, the opinion of a non-Mormon, Smith's use of supernatural means to attempt to discover gold treasure during the period when he's supposed to have used supernatural means to uncover the BoM gold plates is of critical importance to the lead, something every reader of his biography has a right to be told right from the get-go. (The practice wasn't all that common. I can't think of another influential American of the period who was doing it.)

If we were to write an article on say, a religious charity whose chairman had concurrently been conducting a pyramid scheme, we'd want the reader to know that information right up front. Why not Smith's treasure hunting at the moment he comes up with the golden plates? Why exclude such crucial information from the reader, especially since it reflects so negatively on the credibility of Joseph Smith?--John Foxe (talk) 23:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

@Canadiandy: Yes, Moses parting the Red Sea was magic, as was his turning his rod into a serpent and his summoning of plagues upon Egypt. Indeed, the Bible basically says that these latter acts were magic in the same category as that practiced by Pharaoh's magicians. Though there is some overlap between magic and religion, and different views as to the difference between the terms, most scholars recognize that magic focuses more on the special powers, holiness, and/or exactness of ritual of the priest. In magic, the priest can invoke supernatural powers by his own authority or holiness, or has some special ability that the laity does not possess to invoke such powers. In non-magical religion, by contrast, the priest has no special powers in himself; though he may ask his deity for a supernatural demonstration, such demonstration has nothing to do with the powers or abilities of the priest, or the exactness of ritual.

@Kant66: It is appropriate for the lead in a bio article to say where the subject came from, what he did, and why he is important. The mention of magic is part of where he came from. Had Smith not been a background in magic, there would be no magical translation of the Book of Mormon or anything that followed. Therefore, I think that deserves mention in the lede. This would be like failing to mention in the Malcolm X article lede that he spent his early years in prison, or failing to mention in his lede that John McCain was a POW. COGDEN 00:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

COgden. As you wrote, "In non-magical religion, by contrast, the priest has no special powers in himself; though he may ask his deity for a supernatural demonstration, such demonstration has nothing to do with the powers or abilities of the priest, or the exactness of ritual." Is this not an exact description of how Joseph Smith acted. Is there any Priesthood ordinance or miracle he performed that was not through his priesthood (authority received from God)? Is there a single Priesthood act he performed that he would have said in essence, "Oh that wasn't God, that was all me"? If not then the one thing he never did was use magic in his leadership as prophet. This is a fundamental LDS doctrine.

As to Moses parting the Red Sea by magic, I think you're out in the fringes on that one. I understand for Wiki purposes we don't identify it as Moses doing it through the power of God, but it is equally unfair to attribute it to magic or the "occult". I suspect even John Foxe would agree on that one.--Canadiandy talk 00:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

"Had Smith not been a background in magic there would be no magicla translation of the Book of Mormon or anything that followed." This is speculative, especially the "anything that followed," it's essentially reducing the sum of Mormon theology (deification, sealings, restored priesthood authority, etc.) to his association with folk magic. If you want to write an online essay arguing that, fine, but it's not the place for a Wikipedia lead. JS's magic involvement was mainly a factor in his early life, so it should go there, beyond that the folk magic and religion relationship is highly speculative. If it is included in the family section to provide context, it should be placed there in order to contextually situate it well (there was an earlier version John Knoxe reverted that I liked, I don't have time right now to look it up but it said "Joseph Smith was raised in a family that espoused Christian beliefs and folk magic practices common during that era.")

Once again, John, I fail to see how "it reflects negatively on the credibility of Joseph Smith" adds or detracts from its relevance to the Wikipedia lead. Also, I'm sorry, but folk magic was quite common (also see Rough Stone Rolling, page 50). The fact that you personally can't think of any who practiced it hardly qualifies as a Wikipedia source. Kant66 (talk) 00:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

If you don't think the information reflects negatively on Joseph Smith's credibility, that there's nothing for Mormons to hide, then there's no harm in satisfying my request that the information be added to the lead. As for the prevalence of folk magic in 1820s New York, we'd first have to define the meaning of "common."--John Foxe (talk) 02:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I have not read Bushman or Quinn so I will not attempt to comment on their writings, but there are some important misinterpretations of Kant66's writings. First, Kant66 doesn't argue that treasure hunting doesn't reflect negatively on the credibility of Joseph Smith. He argues that you adding that it reflects negatively on Joseph Smith as a basis for adding it to the lead paragraph.

Furthermore, John Foxe is employing a very severe form of the logical fallacy appeal to authority: Quinn is authoritative, therefore, my interpretation of which of Quinn's writings is most important is correct. Kant66 is not arguing that Quinn is so unreliable that he shouldn't be included in the article. He is arguing that the treasure hunting in the lead paragraph is unbalanced. If you want to make an effective argument that it should be included in the lead paragraph, quote one of your reliable sources that says that it is a central aspect of Joseph's life. Quinn might also have reliably written that Joseph liked to take long walks in the forest and throw rocks in the stream, but quoting Quinn saying that is not ample reason to include it in the lead paragraph. Zashitnik (talk) 03:41, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The lead paragraph should include the most important elements of Smith's story. There are many measures of importance, but one of the best gauges, for purposes of Wikipedia, is the amount of material that has been written on a particular aspect of Smith's life by preeminent writers. In this regard, there is nothing about his pre-1829 life that has received more written attention than his career as a magician. It is important for many reasons, not the least of which is its connection with the Book of Mormon, which was translated by the same magic stone and by the same method that he had used in other magical contexts. To say that Smith translated or produced the Book of Mormon, without even noting the influence of magic in his early life, is a severe omission. Also, the prominence with which the subject is discussed in the article merits inclusion in the lead. COGDEN 07:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

COGDEN, I'm not arguing for no mention of Joseph Smth's early magic dabbling, I'm just saying that, taking his life as a whole, it doesn't deserve a place in the lead when basic elements such as his parents' religious affiliations didn't make it into there. The amount of material written on JS's early magic practices (by actual academics with real PhDs, I'm not counting polemical pamphlets) is not a substantively significant percentage when compared to everything that was written about everything in his life. There was one serious scholarly monograph devoted to the subject. It was important in his early life, put it there, anything else is prioritizing a historical fetish.

John Foxe, once again, how much "harm can come from adding it," to the LDS church is competely and utterly irrelevant to whether it should be included in the Wikipedia lead. It preferences material that, when taken as a whole. The point is not to have a pro, con argument for or against JS, but to have a biography. As a Mormon there isn't harm to correctly noting that he was involved in early folk magic practices, as long as its framed in its proper context, but as a Wikipedia editor (a distinction you would be wise to note), there is no justification for including his folk magic in the lead when it is amply treated in the section immediately below and when, taking his life as a whole, it represents a small portion of the material written about him. Kant66 (talk) 16:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

More ad hominem
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
COgden. You keep bringing up the magic point again but still have not answered whether you are an active LDS member. I know hundreds, if not thousands, of LDS people, and not one of them hold your position on Joseph Smith using 'magic'. At least if you cannot answer that question could you explain for me what the term "Liberal LDS member" is. It is foreign to me and many others. And could you explain whether there are any other LDS members you know who describe Joseph Smiths works as the product of magic? This discrepancy deserves a response. --Canadiandy talk 13:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC) Canadiandy: Your questions about COgden's activity in the LDS church or his personal beliefs are wholly inappropriate. They are intrusive and irrelevant; they make no difference as to the merits of COdgen's arguments. You have not questioned me, or Routerone, or B Fizz, or any other editor here on our beliefs or membership status, nor has anyone asked you about yours. You obviously don't like COgden's take on what the sources say but that's no reason to call into question his religious devotion. He doesn't have to have the same views as the hundreds or thousands of LDS people you know in order to be a "true" Latter-day Saint. And whether he is or isn't devout, it's none of our business. Please don't ask these sorts of questions again. alanyst 14:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC) Sorry, Analyst. As COgden often waves the LDS flag, I think it only fair to ask which LDS flag. Like asking a Jewish person if they are Orthodox. My question is again not intended to find out about his level of devotion to the faith, merely his doctrinal context if he is professing himself LDS. For outside editors to come in it would be helpful to know that COgden, while identified LDS, does not reflect any LDS position I have seen before. So to avoid confusion I believe it important because non-LDS contributors could be easily misled into thinking that COgden's positions reflect an LDS-sensitive position. From my perspective they do not. --Canadiandy talk 14:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC) He doesn't often wave the LDS flag, in my experience. But it wouldn't matter if he did. Nobody needs to be alerted to the fact that someone sees things from a different perspective. I can't think of a reason to do so unless you want new editors to dismiss COgden's arguments out of hand instead of considering them on their merits, because of who is making the arguments. That's the quintessential ad hominem fallacy. For the sake of the rest of this talk page, I'm hatting this line of questioning as off-topic. alanyst 15:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I repeat that I haven’t read Bushman or Quinn, but I have read Sergei Antonenko, author of “Mormons in Russia: A Century-Long Path” a reliable source, and cited in the Mormon Church’s Russian page on Wikipedia. I admit, it is not exclusively a biography of Joseph Smith, but he spends much of his time on Church doctrines and non-Russian Church history, including a reasonably thorough treatment of Joseph Smith’s personal history, but makes no mention of treasure hunting. Sergei Antonenko is not a Mormon, and I remember how his book includes speculation of a “heavenly harem,” not the wording that most Mormons would prefer to use to describe polygamous relationships in the afterlife.

Kant66’s appeal to page 50 of Bushman’s biography, in which it is argued that treasure-hunting was a common practice of the time, has yet to be effectively appealed against, and even the fact that it is page 50 suggests that there are 49 other pages full of events and people in Joseph’s early life that are just as significant. Furthermore, this is a book that is 584 pages long.

So far, we have one and a half (half because Antonenko’s book isn’t an exclusive biography) that indicate that the treasure hunting is not significant enough to merit inclusion in the introductory paragraph.

On the other side, we have Quinn’s book(s), which mentions the treasure hunting, but which has not been quoted specifically stating that the treasure-hunting is important to an introduction of Smith as a historical figure. We also don't know what fraction of its pages are devoted to the topic (probably not very much). We also have a claim that many other books focus on this as a central part of this period of life, without quoting or even naming them specifically.

I second Kant66's assertion that the portion of literature devoted to this aspect of this part of Joseph Smith's life is very small when compared to the immense amount of literature written about him.

Even aside from the literature, though, given that one of the things that Joseph Smith is most notable for is the production of the text of the Book of Mormon, I feel that it would be much better to mention that he had little formal education in the introduction. In light of everything else he did, that is a significant fact about his early life. It adds context to his person without making the introduction sound odd.

Also, not all periods of life are equal. Anyone, whether or not they were involved in treasure-hunting in their youth, can make up a story about finding buried treasure. But Joseph Smith is not (in)famous because of a career of successful treasure hunting that began in his childhood, but because of the founding of a Church, whose organization and growing influence don’t result from treasure-hunting, and because of producing numerous books of purported scripture, despite being poor and uneducated, and not as a result of his treasure hunting. Prophet or fraud, or even genius or madman, those are his achievements, none of which were enhanced by treasure-hunting expertise. Zashitnik (talk) 14:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

If Smith had a formal education, that would be worth mentioning, but I don't think we should spend time saying what Smith didn't have. He didn't have a lot of things. I rather like the way the article has been for quite some time, which basically notes that he was raised in an environment influenced by both religion (i.e., the Second Great Awakening) and magic (i.e., seer stones, etc.).

Regarding Quinn's book the entire 646 page volume is devoted to early Mormon magic, the vast majority of it related to Joseph Smith's practice. Also, we have Brooke's The Refiner's Fire which is almost entirely devoted to Smith's magical influences. Brodie devotes an entire chapter to magic (about half of her treatment of his youth) with additional discussion in other chapters. There are also countless peer reviewed articles in Dialogue and elsewhere on the subject. There are even articles in BYU Studies. It is impossible to understand the earliest Mormon history, including early persecutions, without understanding Smith's magical practices and influences. COGDEN 11:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing more specific references to the table. I would be interested to hear you elaborate exactly how "it is impossible to understand the earliest Mormon history, including early persecutions, without understanding Smith's magical practices and influences." Zashitnik (talk) 14:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I think it's sort of funny that they forgot that we were still discussing this here and started a whole new section on it. Zashitnik (talk) 14:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Profess vs. practice

I made this change to the lede before self-reverting so as not to further the edit war. I feel that my change is justified by the reliable sources and article text as I mentioned in the edit summary: reading the Bible and attending church meetings are Christian practices that the family espoused, not merely professions of belief. I think John Foxe's wording attempts to water down the Christian aspects of Joseph Smith's background and emphasize the folk magic aspects, but I think that distorts the narrative that the reliable sources provide. Does anyone (besides John Foxe, whose preference is already known) object to my phrasing, or prefer Foxe's verbiage? alanyst 17:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I have no objection to the phrasing by Alanyst. 72Dino (talk) 17:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem with alanyst's wording is that although some of the Smith family may have professed Christian beliefs, they were engaged in practicing folk magic. What one does exists on a different level than what one says.--John Foxe (talk) 23:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

No objection.--Canadiandy talk 00:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The references indicate they practiced both Christianity and folk magic, so Alanyst's wording is appropriate. 72Dino (talk) 00:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

What references indicate the Smiths practiced Christianity? Certainly none were church members during Joseph's youth.--John Foxe (talk) 00:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Note 10 in the article. 72Dino (talk) 00:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Does one have to attend a Church to practice Christianity John Foxe? Can one only love their neighbor from the pews?--Canadiandy talk 00:31, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a silly, pednatic discussion, so I'm hesitant to even get involved, but yes, John, you can be Christian and practice folk magic; it happens all the time. Some of our atheist brothers and sisters might even go so far as to say that they are one and the same:)

Good way to word it. Part of me feels that some variation of "folk magic that was common at the time," would be better, and part of me feels that the folk religion link does an adequate job of explaining how common it was, for any readers that might have their curiosity piqued as to what "folk magic" is. Briefly mentioning folk magic seems like it should be adequate to satisfy critics of Joseph Smith, but at the same time, it doesn't distort the article into an article focused on attacking Joseph Smith.

It maintains encyclopedic credibility, unlike Candiandy's attempt to call him a prophet in the voice of Wikipedia or Foxe's attempts to ensure that every reader has the impression from the very beginning that Joseph Smith was nothing more than a superstitious conman. I do not mean that as a personal attack, but I think that a few contributors should remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a church publication nor an anti-mormon book. Also, Wikipedia is not a battleground WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND. I have full confidence in the administrators settling issues fairly, if, after ample discussion, anybody still insists on making it a battleground. At any rate, I feel like analyst has shown himself to be fair and intelligent in his contributions, and I find no objections to what he has written. Zashitnik (talk) 01:54, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

There's no need to say that Joseph Smith was a conman. We need only say that his family hunted for gold through supernatural means before we say that Joseph Smith found golden plates through supernatural means. The reliable sources all agree about that. To not say it hides an embarrassing fact in the interest of a promoting a religion.--John Foxe (talk) 02:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Of course there's no need to say that Joseph Smith was a conman because that would be somebody's personal viewpoint. You also seem to indicate that there is a connection between hunting for gold through supernatural means and Smith finding golden plates through supernatural means. The two are not necessarily connected, kind of a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. A reliable source would not be able to definitively state there is a connection because it would be impossible to prove. If you are not suggesting a connection, then I misinterpreted your postings. Lastly, the fact is not embarrassing, it is just a fact. I do not see an attempt to hide it, but rather to put the information in the proper location in the article to assure proper balance. Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 02:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The proper balance is not to hide potentially embarrassing information to promote a religious belief. There's no necessary connection between Smith's treasure hunting and his finding of the golden plates. But you need to be honest with the reader and give him the information he needs to decide the likelihood of such a connection.--John Foxe (talk) 03:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Not putting something in the introduction isn't "hiding" it. There is ample treatment of that subject in the first section of the article. Before editing this article, I edited the article for Islam Karimov, the President of Uzbekistan. I have learned a great deal about him recently, including his countless human rights abuses and murders, which are well described in the english section. Since I speak fluent Russian, I decided to translate the human right's abuses section into Russian so that locals can have some reliable source on him besides the state-controlled media. But I didn't even touch the introductory paragraphs, even though my purpose was to expose him before his people (how unbiased of me). I even shortened the Russian version of the human rights abuses so that it could fit better into the smaller sized Russian article. I am very passionate against his cruelty, but I do not own his article, and you do not own Joseph Smith's article.Zashitnik (talk) 03:18, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Zashitnik, you have no idea how nice it is to have you here. I haven't seen you contribute before, but if your first few points are any indicator you may just be the person we are looking for to save this article. You seem at first blush to be a person of sensitivity to the topic who has no agenda and can see things from the balance point. I accept your rebuke of me is likely aimed at my position as one who respects Joseph Smith as a man and religious leader and so I can be seen as having a non-neutral POV. Fair. I do wish it known that my effort here was not to manipulate the article to be a pro-Mormon piece, but to bring it in line with the balance afforded most other religious figures. I actually have worked at the 'Luther' page in an effort to correct an anti-Luther bias which would paint him as ravingly anti-Jewish. My goal was to bring this article into balance.

So I want you to know that I welcome your support here for two reasons. First because it will help bring a hopeful balance to the 'force.' And second, because it gives me a hope I can step back for a while and let you guide this article from the center (rather than the pendulum shifting of the past. As long as John Foxe continues his anti-Mormon (I know John Foxe you don't hate Mormon people, just their faith) crusade. I'll be watching with gratitude and interest if you are willing to step in and help sort this mess out.

Finally, I want you to know that my position on referring to Joseph Smith as a 'P'rophet was only based on the fact that that is a Priesthood title (similar to 'Pope' in the Catholic faith). I don't point this out to argue, I fully accept your criticisms of my input here as from a position of POV and at times a little too passionate or heated. But I felt with the control of Foxe and COgden that I couldn't leave the article to them either.

I do not know your religious background, but may I tell you that one of the most Christian acting contributors here so far has been you. You strike me as truly "irenic", melioristic, balanced, fair-minded, and well-grounded.

Please say you'll stay, and please know you have my best wishes and respect. I will be watching and cheering neutrality from the sidelines.

Excelsior!--Canadiandy talk 04:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

If you're cheering from the sidelines, this must be an away game.--John Foxe (talk) 23:42, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Zashitnik, I'm pleased you provided balancing information about Islam Karimov (I'm of Eastern European extraction myself), but I don't understand how not changing the lead has any particular merit or what it has to do with article ownership. If Karimov is a notorious abuser of human rights, why shouldn't the lead say so? If Joseph Smith was treasure digging before he found the golden plates, the reader should be told from the beginning of the article. We don't deliberately hide information that's important for a reader's understanding simply because it reflects negatively on the subject's character and credibility.--John Foxe (talk) 00:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Poor form, Foxe. It looked like Zashitnik might finally bring a balance to the edit warring and and polarizing back and forth on this page, and you try and run him out. He is;

 1. Not LDS or anti-LDS
 2. Willing to address problems on both sides of the issue.
 3. Well versed in Wiki ways.
 4. Appears to have a melioristic approach.

And so faced with the opportunity to welcome the perfect contributor you go on the offensive? The only reason I can think you would have a problem with that is it means giving up your control of the article. I will be happy when the article is balanced, but it seems you will not rest until it has become a character assassination of a revered religious leader. It is becoming increasingly difficult to assume good faith, Foxe.--Canadiandy talk 01:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I apologize to Analyst for leading his thread off on a tangent, but I am glad that it accomplished its purpose in gathering consensus to make the edit before I hijacked it with my Islam Karimov comment.

The main idea of my comparison wasn’t to imply that introductions are untouchable or that Karimov doesn’t deserve to have human rights abuses in his Russian intro, but that we should try to be aware of our tendencies to go on Wiki-crusades and be content with contributing to, not owning an article. Looking back, that might not have been the most effective way to make my point.

As for the praises of my impartiality, I will say that there’s hardly any middle ground between thinking Joseph a prophet and thinking him a fraud, but I’m flattered that Canadiandy cannot tell my opinion of him, and I personally am very much impressed that I cannot tell what Analyst’s personal opinion of him is. If Analyst ever considered becoming an administrator, I would definitely support him in that.

Anyway, the question of who thinks what about Joseph, although it has often floated around the talk page, isn’t the most important question. In my opinion, the three most important qualities for any editor to have are:

1. Wikilove

2. A good working knowledge of and respect for Wikipedia procedures and encyclopedic integrity.

3. Reliable sources to support your claims

There are people on both sides of this discussion that have all three qualities, to varying degrees, and no one person is going to “save” this page, no matter how unquestionable his integrity. That’s not how Wikipedia works. This may be cynical of me, but the thing that stopped the Wikibattle was the intervention of administrators, not the arrival of an enlightened editor.

I personally am glad that COgden is contributing. His presence has done wonders for debunking Foxe’s aspirations to think himself the lone crusader against a host of Mormon editors who are desperately trying to hide the Church’s dark origins. I disagree with COgden on some points, otherwise I wouldn’t be discussing these things on the talk page, but discussing things with him is so much less emotionally exhausting, and I look forward to working with him.Zashitnik (talk) 14:21, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I too appreciate COgden's contributions, but I'm still (if we speak loosely) the only non-Mormon here. Here's what COgden said above about the question at issue (after disagreeing with me and my approach):

I think that Smith's early magical career definitely merits inclusion in the lede. So much has been written on the subject, and this activity dominates what we know about his early life. The subject is also significantly tied, either directly or by indirectly, to the finding of the Book of Mormon, as it was Smith's magical seer stone by which he (by one account) found and (by all accounts) translated them.

If you don't agree with COgden, please explain the reason for your disagreement.

Let me restate my own position, which is somewhat different from his. The mention of Smith's earlier magical career is agreed upon by all reliable sources and has been part of the lead for many months. The subject is an embarrassing one for Mormons because it suggests that the finding of the golden plates was related to Joseph Smith's occult activities and magic world view. I do believe Mormons here are "desperately trying to hide the Church’s dark origins." In the past when certain wording has been indifferent to me but important to Mormons, I've been glad to defer to Mormons. In this case, you seem to be unwilling to include substantive material in the lead that reflects negatively on the credibility of Joseph Smith.--John Foxe (talk) 23:42, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Textbook discrimination. You wrote "I do believe Mormons here are "desperately trying to hide the Church’s dark origins." And the biggest concern anyone has with me is that I asked someone if they were a regular church goer? Do you ever review what you write before you hit "Save Page"? Looks like the anti-Mormons have a loose cannon on deck and it's pointed straight down. I refuse to put up with your blatant hate speech, Foxe.--Canadiandy talk 03:07, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

You've dodged the question about why you endorse eliminating a sentence about Joseph Smith that reflects negatively on his character and credibility. All reliable sources agree that Smith was engaged in the practice of treasure hunting by supernatural means during the period in which he found the Golden plates. Why you want to hide that fact from readers of this article's lead?--John Foxe (talk) 03:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I want to "hide" the "fact"? Your insults no longer warrant a response.--Canadiandy talk 03:48, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time crafting a reply that addresses John Foxe's comments without prolonging a fruitless and out-of-place discussion of editor behavior. Perhaps it's best to say that Foxe's arguments about editor motives are ad hominem and an accusation of bad faith, and ought to be retracted.

On-topic, I reiterate my support for mentioning the folk magic background but I oppose WP:UNDUE verbiage that attempts to synthesize an "embarrassing" connection. If we're trying to summarize what the sources say about Smith's early years in order to provide context for the events that followed, the key points seem to be (a) the basic who, when, and where, (b) his family's non-sectarian Christian background, which bears on the Biblical tone/influences in the Book of Mormon as well as the whole notion of a restoration of primitive Christianity, and (c) the family's folk magic background, which bears on the treasure-seeking endeavors and the reaction of family and community to the golden plates and translation efforts. A succinct way to express all three points without distorting the narrative provided by the sources is what I proposed in this edit: "Smith was reared in western New York during a period of religious enthusiasm by a family that espoused both Christian and folk magic practices." I realize Foxe doesn't like this, perhaps because the sweet elixir of the "folk magic" phrase is unhappily mixed with the bitter gall of acknowledging the Smiths' practice of Christianity, but editors with the opposite palate are having to taste the same medicine. alanyst 05:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with analyst, and have made this edit, which also notes that Christian and folk magic practices were common to the era. We wouldn't want to "hide" that "embarrassing" fact, either. I find the attempted distinction between the Smiths' "Christian beliefs" vs "Christian practices" to be absurd. Are there "Christian practices" common to the time that the Smiths notably did not engage in? ...comments? ~BFizz 06:23, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Persecuting their neighbors? alanyst 06:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Joining a church.--John Foxe (talk) 01:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

"[Lucy], Hyrum, Samuel, and Sophronia, joined Western Presbyterian Church." Lucy_Mack_Smith#Book_of_Mormon ...comments? ~BFizz 03:14, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

But notably not Joseph, his father, or Alvin, and not until after Smith claimed to have had his First Vision.--John Foxe (talk) 20:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the above language is fine. Magic, as important an influence on Smith as it was, was just one of the influences. The radical Protestantism of the Second Great Awakening was at least as significant an influence, as essentially every writer on the subject has said. COGDEN 12:14, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Joseph Smith and the occult (2)

Let me start a second section on the question to which I did not receive an answer: The mention of Smith's early employment in folk magic—which includes visions of treasure, animal sacrifices, and the use of a seer stone—is agreed upon by all reliable sources and has been part of the lead for many months. I realize the subject is an embarrassing one for Mormons because it suggests that the finding of the golden plates was related to Joseph Smith's occult activities and his magic world view. Why is it not possible to include substantive material in the lead that reflects so negatively on the character and credibility of Joseph Smith?--John Foxe (talk) 23:42, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Which verbiage, precisely, are you proposing to restore to the lede? I myself, and others I would hope, will then consider whether the lede is complete with or without that additional information. But in general I'd say the reasoning is this: his treasure hunting activity for a few years is eclipsed by his claim to prophetic authority and power for several decades. This doesn't necessarily mean we need to exclude clear mention of treasure hunting from the lede, though. ...comments? ~BFizz 03:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Visions of treasure and the use of a seer stone seem to be essentially the same thing, in that the former is (claimed to be) the result of the latter. The "animal sacrifice" bit is new to me; can you quote the sources that assert such a practice? Please include enough context in the quote(s) for the authorial intent to be evident.

Also, "it suggests that the finding of the golden plates was related to Joseph Smith's occult activities and his magic world view" is a curious statement for a few reasons. First, it sounds like WP:SYNTH. Second, it sounds like it admits the existence of the golden plates, which I thought the skeptical position denies. Third, it's very coy about "suggesting" a relationship without stating outright that there was such a relationship. What specific bits of magic do you assert to have been part of Smith's finding the golden plates? If there are none, what specifically do the reliable sources suggest? Again, we will need citations/quotations from the sources to allow evaluation of this claim. alanyst 04:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Quinn argues for a version of this. However,this is very speculative as it basically involves a psychoanalysis of somebody who lived over 150 years ago and relies on environmental parallels. In my opinion the relationship is much too arguable and tentative to state it in the lead. The elements that do appear connected (e.g. The usage of seer stones to translate) are already discussed in the section on his early life.Kant66 (talk) 04:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Here's the gist of what I'd like in the lead:

"Smith was reared in western New York during a period of religious enthusiasm by a family that both professed Christian beliefs and practiced folk magic. Smith himself claimed the ability to find buried treasure through supernatural means."

There's no need to state a connection between Smith's earlier treasure hunting and the finding of the golden plates. We can just state the facts as they are.

Certainly I have no problem about adding footnotes. Most leads don't have footnotes, but often WP newcomers to this article don't know that and add "citation requested" boxes; so a footnote (probably to Bushman) would probably be a good idea.--John Foxe (talk) 23:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Umm, Foxe, I hope you know that the question was still being actively discussed under your first heading when you created this second one. Now COgden and I are up there, and everybody else has gone down here. I hope that we can make this one discussion instead of two separate ones. It does make it easier to come to a conclusion if everybody is in the same conversation. I propose copying and pasting the most recent conversations from under this heading to the original heading before our conversations diverge too much. Zashitnik (talk) 14:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to assume that we're going to continue the conversation down here. By placing it in the lead right before the BoM, it implies a relationship. It also just feels (in a literary, not metaphysical/religious sense) a bit out of place; the early magic involvement is already mentioned in the lead and then expounded below, and thoroughly expanded in the follow-up article on JS's early life. Putting it in here expands the level of detail in this particular episode beyond that which is proportionately normal in a lead, and does read like a particular interest is prioratized above and beyond that which is warranted when considering his life as a whole. Kant66 (talk) 18:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. I didn't mean to confuse the discussion by starting a new heading. I'd be happy to have everything pasted in one place or the other, but someone else should do it so I don't make things worse.

To me and to the reliable sources (say, Bushman, Brodie, Quinn, and the like) there's a definite relationship between Smith's treasure hunting and his later religious activities. Then again, try to view the question from the viewpoint of a novice coming at Joseph Smith perhaps knowing only what he's been told by the elders during the missionary discussions. Smith's early participation in folk magic (which Joseph never wholly abandoned) will be a more important piece of new information in his assessment of Smith's claims than the Missouri War, the Kirtland banking fiasco, Smith's city planning, or his run for president, all of which are discussed in the lead.--John Foxe (talk) 20:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

That's OK, it looks like while I was gone we all moved down here, so looks like we're on the same page now. Zashitnik (talk) 11:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia's purpose is not to correct the omissions of zealous pro- or anti-mormons. It is (in this particular case) to present a well-rounded article that fairly treats all aspects of Smith's life. It is only a "more important piece of new information" if you wish to persuade that Smith is a fraud. From a neutral view, it is simply another piece of information. ...comments? ~BFizz 17:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed; imagine if we evaluated statements this way: "Try to view the question from the viewpoint of a novice coming at Joseph Smith perhaps knowing only what he's been told by his pastor and what he read in the anti-Mormon literature. XYZ will be a more important piece of new information in his assessment of Smith's character than the polygamy or folk magic statements in the lead." I think this would (rightly) be viewed as an attempt to promote a sympathetic POV. alanyst 17:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure the historians do argue that (with the exception of Quinn). Perusing through Brodie, I don't see her making an explicit connection. I've included some relevant quotes below (1970 edition).

21) Crystal-gazing is an old profession and has been an honored one....When Joseph Smith first began to use his seer or “peep stone," he employed the folklore familiar to rural America. The details of his rituals and incantations are unimportant because they were commonplace, and Joseph gave up money-digging when he was twenty-one for a profession more exciting.

31) It may seem that this trial, the first in a long series of crises in his life, shocked Joseph into a sense of the futility of his avocation, for he now gave up his money-digging altogether, although he retained his peepstone and some of the psychological artifices of the rural diviner.... It is clear that Joseph had no desire to make a life profession of emulating Walters. Perhaps he gave up the trickery and artifice just when their hollowness became most evident to him; perhaps his renunciation was due entirely to emma hale. But he could not case off his unbridled fancy and lov of theatricalism, which had attracted him to necromancy in the first place.

33) In truth he was through with money-digging. But if he had become disillusioned with the profession, he had retained a superb faith in himself. In the next five years Joseph climbed up out of the world of magic into the world of religion. He was transformed from a lowly necromancer into a prophet, surrounded no longer merely by a clientele but by an enthusiastic following with common purposes and ideals.

These quotes demonstrate clear distinctions between his magic and religious careers. The only two quotes I was able to find that suggest a connection are below:

71) Joseph’s preoccupation with magic stones crept into the narrative here as elsewhere. The Jaredites had sixteen stones for lighting their barges; God had touched each one with His finger and made it forever luminous. He had given the Nephites, on the other hand, two crystals with spindles inside which directed the sailing of their ships.

85) Joseph’s great dramatic talent found its first outlet in the cabbalistic ritual of rural wizardry, then in the hocus-pocus of the Gold Bible mystery, and finally in the exacting and apparently immensely satisfying role of prophet of God. His talent, like that of many dramatic artists, was emotional rather than intellectual, and it was free from the tempering influence that a amore critical audience would have exercised upon it.

These two statements aren't enough to suggest that the connection is a part of her overall thesis. Admittedly, I might have missed something. I also don't have access to Bushman right now, so I'm completely open to being shown to be wrong, but at least Brodie doesn't seem to make a connection, even though some of the elements are similar enough (using the seerstone in the translation process) that a casual reader of the Wikipedia article could probably draw their own conclusions without having it thrust upon them.

In terms of Quinn, he has some interesting theories, but ultimately his work is highly speculative. I'm not dismissing his work, but it really is the conjectures of one historian. Once again, something to include in the later, more in-depth articles, but hardly authoritative enough to include in the introduction.

In sum, the folk magic/Mormon theology connection is arguable and tentative enough that it doesn't justify using it in the intro. If we do so to provide some of his early background, it should read something like."by a family that espoused both Christian practices and the folk magic practices common to the era, both of which he was involved in." To say he claimed the ability to find treasure through supernatural means" is incredibly detailed, and seems to be phrasing it a way to try to make it look as strange as possible, when it really wasn't strange for the time period. It's like talking about Abraham by saying, "and he tried to kill his son because God told him to." While technically it is true, it is framing it in a way that tries to make it most repugnant to post-enlightenment sensibilities. The wording I have suggested acknowledges the role that early magic played in his life in a concise way without seeming to magnify a particular issue beyond its proportional role in his life taken as a whole. Kant66 (talk) 18:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd just like the lead to state that Joseph Smith practiced folk magic before (actually during as well) the time he found the golden plates, something like "Smith was reared in western New York during a period of religious enthusiasm by a family that both professed Christian beliefs and practiced folk magic. Smith himself claimed the ability to find buried treasure through supernatural means."

There's no need to make a connection between Smith's treasure hunting and the finding of the golden plates. We can just state the facts as they are. He certainly practiced treasure seeking with visions, seer stones, animal sacrifices, etc. after the year in which he later claimed he had received the First Vision. The reliable sources agree, and the facts themselves are neutral. Let the reader himself decide whether his practice of folk magic for profit was important or not. Of course, to me as a non-Mormon, it's critical in understanding who Joseph Smith was.

Would you be willing to suggest compromise wording?--John Foxe (talk) 04:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Kang66, I agree with the idea of presenting the information as academically and clinically as possible. There's no need to spice it up and make it sound like a tabloid headline. The current historical consensus, developed mostly since Quinn who was the groundbreaking author, is that Smith was a skilled magician, and his magical background had a profound influence on the earliest Mormonism. While some apologetic authors are still uncomfortable with that fact, no mainstream apologetic authors, including Bushman, dispute it, while mainstream secular authors who don't have an evangelical line to tow just take it for granted as not that big a deal, or as just another fascinating aspect of Smith's enigmatic 19th century life. So lets just state it as neutrally as possible consistent with giving it the prominence it is due, and move on. COGDEN 07:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Folk magic's connection to JS's early religious innovations is explicitly made by only one of the three historians we tend to use here (Quinn, Brodie, and Bushman); however, I agree that it formed a major part of his early life so including it in the lead on those grounds seems justified to me. I think the question at this point is how to incorporate the information in a non-awkward, concise, non-leading way that takes into account context. I have three examples below that I think fulfill these criteria, let me know what you guys (or girls) think is most appropriate (or if you have some ideas that you think approach this better).

Smith was reared in western New York during a period of religious enthusiasm by a family that espoused both Christian and folk magic practices common to the era, both of which Smith was involved in.

Smith was reared in Western New York during a period of religious enthusiasm. Early in his life, he practiced folk magic common to the era. In the late 1820s, he said that an angel...

Smith was reared in Western New York during a period of religious enthusiasm, during which time he practiced folk magic common to the era. In the late 1820s, he said that an angel...

Anyway, these are some of my ideas. What do you all think? Kant66 (talk) 17:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

It's important to mention both the Christian and folk magic aspects of Joseph Smith's background, and the only one of your options that does that is the first one. I don't care for the "both of which he was involved in" clause though; it feels awkward. alanyst 17:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

It's important to also include something like "Smith himself claimed the ability to find buried treasure through supernatural means." Stylistically and syntactically, the best alternative (he said humbly) is "Smith was reared in western New York during a period of religious enthusiasm by a family that both professed Christian beliefs and practiced folk magic. Smith himself claimed the ability to find buried treasure through supernatural means." The sentences are concise and don't mention the facts that Smith made a living gold digging or that he used the same seer stone both to hunt treasure and to translate the BoM.--John Foxe (talk) 01:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

How about this?

Smith was reared in Western New York during a period of religious enthusiasm, during which time he was [maybe "his thinking was"] influenced by both the Christian revivalist atmosphere and the folk magic practices of the time. In the late 1820s, he said that an angel...

I think this directly addresses the issue of his being influenced by folk magic. Further details would expound on this particular episode disproportionately considering the little explanation the subsequent items in the lead get. Doing it this way addresses it up front and gives context to his early upbringing (ostensibly the reason for including it). On a more pedantic note, should we keep "Western New York"? His family didn't move there until he was a teenager, but I don't know if there's a way to concisely say "New England and New York," maybe "in and around New England"? Kant66 (talk) 04:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Smith's contemporaries recalled that he had little interest in religion during his youth, so I doubt he was "influenced by the Christian revivalist atmosphere" (though his mother certainly was). I'd be willing to give up my whole first suggested sentence ("Smith was reared in western New York during a period of religious enthusiasm by a family that both professed Christian beliefs and practiced folk magic") to have one clear statement that Smith claimed the ability to find buried treasure through supernatural means. I believe inclusion of some sort of statement like that is critical because it defines who Joseph Smith was. Admitting to Smith's treasure digging may be uncomfortable to some less knowledgeable Mormons, but it can't be excluded on that ground.--John Foxe (talk) 17:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

A summary of the preceding discussion:

Me: Here's a statement that gives a good balanced summary of Smith's background.

Everyone but Foxe: Okay.

Foxe: It has to mention treasure-seeking.

Everyone else: No, that's undue detail for the lede.

Foxe: Let's compromise by weakening the reference to Christianity and adding a statement about treasure-seeking.

Everyone else: No, that's undue detail for the lede.

Foxe: I'd be willing to throw out the sentence about Smith's background and just to have a statement about treasure-seeking.

Everyone else: [Heads explode.]

alanyst 18:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

At least I appreciate your humor, alanyst. (Humor—as opposed to bitter sarcasm—is not a strong point of Wikipedia talk pages.)

Nevertheless, I continue to believe that the lede needs a sentence indicating that Smith claimed the ability to find buried treasure through supernatural means before he found the golden plates. We don't have to say that he made his living treasure seeking; we don't have to use the phrase "folk magic"; we don't have to say anything about seer stones. We just need a simple statement that as a young man Smith claimed ability to find buried treasure by supernatural means. Anyone want to suggest some compromise wording?--John Foxe (talk) 00:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Humor's all that's left. I'll step away from the conversation now, since I've had more than my say and further reiteration of the point most likely won't lead to further progress. alanyst 01:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we could get outside mediation? Want to suggest an appropriate forum?--John Foxe (talk) 02:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

General consensus is that specific mention of "treasure seeking" is undue detail for the lede. If you (Foxe) feel that this consensus is too heavily influenced by pro-Mormon thought, then you should seek some form of intervention; I'm not sure exactly what the correct approach would be...perhaps Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. ...comments? ~BFizz 03:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Not quite sure what outside mediation entails, but I think we can safely say that we've reached unanimity-1 (U-1), so I'm going to go ahead and insert the phrase. At the risk of being repetitious, it introduces the folk magic practices of his early life in a concise way that does not appear to be taken up by a particular fetish.Kant66 (talk) 03:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it's unanimity-2 (U-2, a spy plane shot down in 1960) if you count COgden. I do believe that Mormon distaste for noting Joseph Smith's career as a treasurer seeker prevents my position from being taken seriously. I'm especially annoyed by having the revelation of Smith's early engagement with the occult called a "fetish." I'll be glad to take a complaint to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, if that's the next step. Perhaps someone else has a different notion?--John Foxe (talk) 11:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Graciously accepting a widespread, reasonable consensus, even if that means you don't get your way? Zashitnik (talk) 14:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

A consensus of Mormon opinion is not necessarily a widespread or reasonable consensus. My responsibility is to the majority of English readers, that is to say, readers with a non-Mormon perspective. Having said that, you folks are my opponents but not my enemies. I'm personally committed to a complaint process conducted with civility and respect.

I'm wondering if Requests for comment might be a better place to start than Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Someone have experience with either of these two venues?--John Foxe (talk) 20:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I might be wrong here (COgden, if you're out there maybe you can clarify), but I thought that COgden's point was that the early folk magic should be included because it represents a significant portion of the material written on his early life. We have done so. I thought that the discussion was over the sentence about the specifics of his treasure hunting added too much detail.

As it reads, I think it does a good job of neither whitewashing nor magnifying his warts or strengths. John Foxe, I promise that we're not all part of a vast Mormon conspiracy to make Joseph Smith out to be Jesus. There's more than enough material here to complicate the simple version that people get from Mormon missionaries (not that it matters, but you seem to think that it does), and nobody's going to incur eternal consequences because they were or were not turned off by the introduction to the Joseph Smith Wikipedia article.

The point here isn't to have an argument over whether he was a psychopath or prophet (there are plenty of online forums for that), but to present an accurate, proportionally-framed account of his life, and your random jabs at him don't help that end goal.

Also, you assume that everybody here is LDS, when you really don't know (for sake of disclosure, I am).

I don't have experience with any of those two venues. After looking at the two venues, I'm not quite sure which would be best for your purposes. Best of luck deciding. Kant66 (talk) 23:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I've been here for sometime, so I'm not a believer in a monolithic LDS conspiracy. I've gotten to know personalities over many months, who's more aggressive, who's more thoughtful, etc. But all the regulars here are LDS except for A Sniper (who's a descendant of Joseph and Emma) and me. (Sometimes editors helpfully list the fact on their user page.)

The article's been nominated as a GA at least twice now, and it's been rejected because it was considered too pro-Mormon. I've argued vainly that it wasn't. Nevertheless, attempts to burnish Joseph's image in the lede aren't helpful in moving this article forward.

You say "nobody's going to incur eternal consequences because they were or were not turned off by the introduction to the Joseph Smith Wikipedia article." If you believe the information about Smith's engagement with the occult before his discovery of the golden plates is truly insignificant, then you should give way to my version, because I think it's very important, something every reader has a right to know from the outset of the article. I've repeatedly insisted that the information about Smith's gold digging reflects negatively on his character and credibility, not to take "random jabs" at him but to illustrate that no Mormon (except COgden) will challenge that characterization. So far as I can tell, you all believe it as much as I do.

At this point I'm leaning toward posting on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, but I'll wait a day or two in case others want to weigh in with suggestions.--John Foxe (talk) 15:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it is appropriate to get some outside voices. We can't say that anything here is a "consensus" if the split in opinion falls along religious lines. Wikipedia-wide, only a relatively small percentage of editors is Mormon. Therefore, we have to be careful about mistaking consensus among editors here (most of whom are Mormon, and some of whom might understandably wish to excise facts about their founder that they find embarrassing) with Wikipedia-wide consensus. How much prominence is due to Smith's early magical career is a good question for the larger Wikipedia community. COGDEN 23:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with outside voices, as long as they don't have an axe to grind one way or the other and have a good enough grasp of Mormon history to have a sense of holistic proportion. COgden, I'm not quite sure where you are on this. I'm not judging, I just want some clarification; do you think that the "Smith himself claimed.." sentence deserves to be placed there?

I agree that we need to be wary of people trying to "excise" uncomfortable facts. I think there's another, more subtle danger here of assuming that every change by a believing Mormon is agenda-pushing. It's a tempting line to take, since it fits so neatly into a narrative that has sometimes shown to be true of a church trying to whitewash its past, but let's try to assume good faith and stop the Galileo complexes. It does get tiring to have every opinion automatically assumed to be agenda-pushing when my legitimate, explicitly stated reason (if you missed it it's repeated about five times above, and no, it has nothing to do with the image of the church) are completely ignored in the discussion.Kant66 (talk) 03:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

If all "believing Mormons" (a dig at COgden?) agree on excising material that reflects negatively on the character and credibility of Joseph Smith, refusing to even consider an opposing view, the burden of proof is on them to prove that the position is not agenda-pushing.

Do you, or do you not, believe the material I've just introduced into the lead reflects negatively on Joseph Smith even though all reliable sources agree with it?--John Foxe (talk) 16:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Eliminating the content from the lede has nothing to do with agenda pushing (although adding it may be), but rather falls under undue weight. I would accept the sentence in the lede of the Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr. article, but it is not appropriate in this overview. 72Dino (talk) 17:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't have much to say that hasn't been said already, so, um, ditto to what Kant66 says. I do think it's important to keep the "common to the era" because first, it was, and second, it helps the reader keep a proper perspective. Adjwilley (talk) 17:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Foxe, not only are you asking a loaded question, you are asking the wrong question. The question is whether or not the detail should be included, based on WP:LEDE and other guidelines. No one has suggested we remove the treasure-seeking from the body of the article. It's written plain as day in the Early Life section and no one is saying we should remove it from there. Foxe, from the way that you consistently note that this factoid "reflects negatively on Smith" suggests that you are agenda pushing to do just that. "refusing to even consider an opposing view" describes you just as well; it appears you haven't once suggested any alternate phrasing that does not specifically mention treasure seeking. What exactly is it that convinces you this is such an important point for the lede? ...comments? ~BFizz 17:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Smith's treasure seeking is a defining characteristic, one that reflects negatively on his character and credibility as as prophet. Bushman says that Smith "never repudiated the stones or denied their power to find treasure." (51) Such an important aspect of Smith's life should be mentioned right up front at the beginning of the lede. I'm amused that you have to take refuge in WP:UNDUE and that none of you will dare admit something that we agree on, that Smith's treasure seeking reflects negatively on the credibility of his testimony.--John Foxe (talk) 20:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

One does not "take refuge" by following one of Wikipedia's five pillars, editing from a neutral point of view which is where WP:UNDUE policy falls, regardless of how amusing you find that. 72Dino (talk) 20:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Neither of us is editing from a neutral point of view. You're a Mormon, I'm a non-Mormon, and we're editing an article about the founder of Mormonism. How could we possibly argue from a neutral point of view?--John Foxe (talk) 20:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Child Alvin Stillborn

In the section regarding the lost 116 pages of the Book of Mormon, this page lists Joseph and Emma's first child, Alvin, as stillborn. However, the page that separately lists the children makes it look like he was alive for a few hours. Do anyone know for certain that Alvin was alive for a few hours? 71.66.107.237 (talk) 02:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)jeppsna

Bushman says, "died that very day, June 15," (67), Brodie says, "died at birth," and Persuitte says, "deformed and stillborn son" (78). Vogel says "Emma gave birth to an infant boy who died the same day. Sophia Lewis was present at the birth and said the infant was 'stillborn and very much deformed.'" (125, cited to EMD 4: 298.)--John Foxe (talk) 01:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

BoM witnesses

Adjwilley added the following to the text, which I then reverted: "Though many of the eleven witnesses were later alienated from the church, none of them ever denied seeing the plates, and all defended the authenticity of their published testimony. Most of the witnesses reaffirmed their testimony just before their death." http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/EoM&CISOPTR=4391&CISOSHOW=5554&REC=1

There are three problems with the edit. First, for Wikipedia purposes, the addition doesn't cite a reliable source, which are "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy....Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science." This definition basically excludes anything published by the LDS Church, BYU, FAIR, etc. because their publications are not peer-reviewed (at least in the Wikipedia sense of that word). Reliable sources would include standard academic biographies, such as those by Brodie and Bushman.

Second, in the phrase "none of them ever denied seeing the plates," we'd have to define what is meant by the words "none," "ever," and "seeing."

A third problem is that this information detours the reader from the biography of Joseph Smith. There are individual articles on the Book of Mormon witnesses, the Three Witnesses, and the Eight Witnesses, plus biographical articles about most of the individuals. Even if the information were properly sourced, it would need to go in the footnotes.--John Foxe (talk) 18:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

A few notes. First of all, all of theme were alienated at some point, not "many of them," so this should be fixed.

Also, here is a Brodie reference (for the three witnesses):

All three witnesses eventually quarreled with Joseph and left his church. At their going he heaped abuse upon them, but none ever denied the reality of his vision, and Cowdery and Harris eventually were rebaptized. Joseph had no fear of vilifying them; he neither expected nor received reprisals. For he had conjured up a vision they would never forget. (78)

I'm fine either way on this point. My only complaint is that it seems disingenuous to argue that it interrupts the flow of the Joseph Smith article when the sentence immediately proceding it also does so. This is an article about Joseph Smith, not the reliability (or lack thereof) of the eleven witnesses. I'd prefer just leaving the statement about the eleven witnesses and moving on so as to not make this a tit-for-tat issue (with, of course, more information on the more specific pages), but if we are going to have the proceeding sentence then it would make sense to include the one that Adjwilley placed. Kant66 (talk) 19:05, 13 June 2011 ::(UTC)

The reason for the added statement was the sentence just before which states "Some secular scholars argue that the witnesses thought they saw the plates with their "spiritual eyes," or that Smith showed them something physical like fabricated tin plates, or that they signed the statement out of loyalty or under pressure from Smith." This statement is fair enough, though biased against Mormons. The sentence I added restores the balance. Now let me address the problems you pointed out.

1. Are you disputing the truth of the statement, or are you disputing the source? If it's the truth, then the statement should be fairly easy to disprove. If it's the source, then I would ask, why are you blocking the truth because it was said by somebody you don't think is reliable? You can't just throw out any article published by the LDS church, BYU, Fair, etc. Religion is a charged issue. People who write about it are interested in it, and people who are interested are usually somehow affiliated with it. It's not a perfect system. I would agree that many Mormons who write about Joseph Smith are biased toward Mormonism, but it would be a logical fallacy to say that non-Mormon writers are unbiased. In fact, many of them are biased against Mormonism for various reasons. The reference about Smith pressuring the witnesses to sign the statement is biased. Vogel was an ex-Mormon. So if we throw out all the Mormon sources, then to retain ballance, we would have to throw out sources by ex and anti-Mormons, and then what would be left of our article? The other solution would be to realize that it's a charged topic, everybody has a bias, and just let both sides tell their story.

2. I don't know how to respond to that. That's like Bill Clinton trying to fine "is". None = not one. Ever = while he was alive. I understand how "see" could be taken a number of ways (i.e. spiritual vs. physical eyes), but define it how you will, and the statement is still true.

3. Perhaps it does detour, but no more than the previous sentence about the fabricated tin plates and spiritual eyes. If you insist on this point, I recommend removing the "tin plates" sentence because the information detours the reader from the biography of Joseph Smith. Adjwilley (talk) 19:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I removed the sentence preceding the reverted one because it "detours the reader from the biography of Joseph Smith" IMO. It really should have both sentences for proper context or neither, and I believe neither is the better approach. 72Dino (talk) 19:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Adjwilley (talk) 19:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with deleting that sentence, although I think it would have been better if it had been moved to the notes.

@Adjwilley: I was disputing both the truth of the statement and the source.

First, about the source. Wikipedia privileges scholarly secondary sources over non-scholarly primary ones. So at Wikipedia, Brodie's a reliable source, and Joseph Smith is not. This policy regularly strikes newcomers as odd though it works pretty well in practice. Determining whether a source is reliable for purposes of Wikipedia has nothing to do with whether it's biased or not but largely by whom it's published. Regardless of bias (which might well be equal), a peer-reviewed book by a major New York publisher is, for purposes of Wikipedia, a reliable source; a book written by an apologist and published by the LDS Church is not.

Second, the statement itself. There's a good argument to be made that Oliver Cowdery did briefly renounce belief in the Book of Mormon before being rebaptized. Martin Harris's statements about the reality of what he saw are a complete muddle; charitably, he told different stories to different people right to the end. Seeing with "spiritual eyes" is not how most people define "seeing."--John Foxe (talk) 21:55, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the deleted statement is necessary, and it has neutrality and accuracy problems. Neutrality is not about balancing every "embarrassing" statement about Smith with a "faith promoting" statement. Rather, the goal is to give due weight to all relevant information, regardless of whether or not some people think it portrays Smith in a good or bad light.

We've probably talked this one to death by now. I never thought of either of the statements as "embarrassing" or "faith promoting." The tin plates statement was a (non-neutral) attempt to discredit Smith by raising questions about what the witnesses saw. My statement was another non-neutral statement about the witnesses, meant to balance the previous. In terms of accuracy, I think the first statement has some issues. "Some secular scholars argue that the witnesses thought they saw the plates. . ." is a pretty weak statement, but it is a fairly well-established fact that the witnesses didn't deny having seen the plates.

Anyway, thank you for your advice on sources. I probably have more to say about this, but will do it another time. Adjwilley (talk) 00:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Oops, Codgen forgot to sign his last post. As he said, the removed sentence had both "neutrality and accuracy problems." Stylistically it wasn't that great either. But unlike your statement, it was at least cited to Vogel, a reliable source.--John Foxe (talk) 01:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that neither the tin plates/"spiritual eyes" explanation, nor the absence of any denial from the witnesses, are relevant to the biography of Joseph Smith. I like 72Dino's recent change. Zashitnik (talk) 04:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)