Talk:Origin of Latter Day Saint polygamy/Archive 4

Talk page from merged article "1831 polygamy revelation"

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Overstating the case

The article in present form overstates the accuracy of Phelps' transcription of the purported revelation. Phelps' group had "neither pen, ink or paper", so he was relying completely on memory when he wrote this. The Tanners date Phelps' manuscript to 1861, so we have a 30-year gap in between the events and the recording. This is a considerable amount of time, and puts serious doubt into the wording and content of Smith's words.The article needs to be toned down to be more responsible dealing with the source material. --MrWhipple (talk) 16:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

According to that link, the Tanners can only date Phelp's record of the revelation to any between 1831 and 1861:

the first document—containing only the revelation and Phelps' comment—appears to be older than the letter dated August 12, 1861. It is possible that the revelation could have been recorded any time between 1831 and 1861.

Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 16:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Additional: There is a contemporary source on marriage to Native Americans found in a letter from Ezra Booth published in in the Ohio Star on 8 December 1831. Note that he doesn't say anything about plural marriage, and in fact goes out of his way to make the point that the individual he describes was "free from his [first] wife." Booth writes:

In addition to this, and to co-operate with it, it has been made known by revelation, that it will be pleasing to the Lord, should they form a matrimonial alliance with the Natives; and by this means the Elders, who comply with the thing so pleasing to the Lord, and for which the Lord has promised to bless those who do it abundantly, gain a residence in the Indian territory, independent of the agent. It has been made known to one, who has left his wife in the state of N.Y. that he is entirely free from his wife, and he is at liberty to take him a wife from among the Lamanites. It was easily perceived that this permission, was perfectly suited to his desires. I have frequently heard him state, that the Lord had made it known to him, that he is as free from his wife as from any other woman; and the only crime that I have ever heard alleged against her is, she is violently opposed to Mormonism. (Source)

This throws additional light on this subject and should be included in the (toned down and more responsible version of the) article.--MrWhipple (talk) 16:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Please explain how is this relevant to the 1831 revelation. It appears to be a non sequitur at best. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 16:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It's relevant because Booth describes a revelation given in 1831 about marriage to Indians in the Indian Territory (which bordered Missouri). It's pretty evident that Booth is talking about the same revelation, only he doesn't mention anything about plural marriage. Considering the 30-year gap between the event and Phelps' recording of it, it's very possible that he misremembered the context of the conversation.

This is basic historical methodology: Late sources are to be considered questionable at best. To quote Phelps without mentioning the context is irresponsible.--MrWhipple (talk) 17:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't solve the problem

The recent edits don't resolve the following problems:

• It's disingenuous to claim that the Phelps letter to Brigham Young was written "anytime between 1831 and 1861." It's much more likely that Phelps' letter was written after Brigham was established as the leader of the LDS Church and already in the Salt Lake basin. That would date the letter to 1847 at the earliest. And the context of the letter gives it a Civil War-era dating. Even the Tanners admit this.
• The edits don't include Ezra Booth's contemporary letter and its lack of discussion of polygamy.
• The article makes the Tanners' connection between 2 Nephi 30 and the Phelps letter. But Joseph Smith himself changed the wording in the 1840 Book of Mormon to "pure and delightsome," which clearly indicates he did not see the word "white" as relating to skin color. It's much more likely that Phelps' transcript was biased by his own reading of 2 Nephi 30. (The "white" to "pure" change didn't make it past the 1840 edition because future editions of the Book of Mormon were based on the 1841 Liverpool edition, which was a reprint of the 1837 Kirtland edition.)
• The article is altogether too certain of its conclusions. It needs to be moderated in tone.

At this point I'd go so far as to say that the article, being based entirely on Tanner material, is not neutral.--MrWhipple (talk) 17:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Please be specific about which part is not neutral. Contrary to what you say, the article is not based upon "Tanner material," but simply the factual reality of Phelps account of a polygamy revelation made to Joseph Smith in 1831, as well as the factual statement that the wording of this revelation is comparable in language and circumstance to the 1830 wording of 2 Nephi 30:5-6. These facts are independent of anything the Tanners ever wrote. And please provide a sources for the claims that (1) "It's much more likely that Phelps' letter was written after Brigham was established as the leader," and (2) that "Joseph Smith himself changed the wording in the 1840 Book of Mormon." According to Douglas Campbell (Winter 1996). "'White' or 'Pure': Five Vignettes". Dialogue. 29 (4): 119–135., Smith directed Pratt to publish a new 1837 version which contains the word "white," but that the 1840 version published by Robinson in October 1840 in Cincinnati, Ohio is the first where "pure" appears. Whether Smith directed this (or not) is not indicated. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 18:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The scholarly references I added (Foster, Arrington) establish the factual claims made in the article. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 19:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

"...the factual reality of Phelps account of a polygamy revelation made to Joseph Smith in 1831..."

In my opinion, the failure to note that the account almost certainly dates to much later than 1831, a failure which leaves the reader with the impression that Phelp's account was contemporary with the alleged revelation (and may even have been a dictation directly from Smith to Phelps) is so serious as to call into question your good faith. "...the factual statement that the wording of this revelation is comparable in language and circumstance to the 1830 wording of 2 Nephi 30:5-6..." That's not a plain statement of fact; it's an interpretation. Isn't it the Tanners' interpretation? "...And please provide a sources for the claims that (1) "It's much more likely that Phelps' letter was written after Brigham was established as the leader,.." MrWhipple did give a source. Ironically, it was the Tanners.

The inclusion of a token footnote or two from Mormon historians does not resolve the neutrality issue. Your removal of the NPOV warning was premature. Kgbudge (talk) 19:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith: improve the article by editing it yourself if can. The article does provide the dates of Phelp's note as best as it is known. As we discussed, the Tanners conclude anytime between 1831 and 1861. I added the Foster OUP reference that puts it at the 1850s or 1860s. These are not "token footnotes," but scholarly citations supporting the facts presented in the article. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 19:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The alleged connection between the revelation and 2 Nephi 30:6 is most certainly made by the Tanners in The Changing World of Mormonism, pp. 208-209, quoted below:

"Michael Marquardt, a student of Mormon history who became very disturbed with the church's policy of suppressing important records, became interested in this revelation. He found that some Mormon scholars had copies of the revelation, but had to promise not to make any additional copies. Finally, however, Mr. Marquardt learned what appears to be the real reason why the revelation was suppressed: because the revelation commanded the Mormons to marry the Indians to make them a "white" and "delightsome" people!

Now, to a Christian who is familiar with the teachings of the Bible, the color of a man's skin makes no difference. In Mormon theology, however, a dark skin is a sign of God's displeasure.

...

The Book of Mormon stated that when the Lamanites repented of their sins "their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites" (3 Nephi 2:15). The Book of Mormon also promised that in the last days the Lamanites—i.e., the Indians—will repent and "many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and delightsome people" (2 Nephi 30:6).

Therefore, "...the factual statement that the wording of this revelation is comparable in language and circumstance to the 1830 wording of 2 Nephi 30:5-6..." is simply the Tanner's interpetation. Bochica (talk) 19:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks -- it's appropriate then to put a citation to the Tanners next to this sentence, even though it is an NPOV statement of fact and does not necessarily reflect their conclusions. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 19:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

To answer Écrasez l'infâme's earlier questions:

1. Both Hyrum Andrus (Doctrines of the Kingdom, 451) and David J. Whittaker (below) date the Phelps letter to 12 August 1861. Whittaker's analysis in Dialogue 18/4 is important:

The first Mormon preaching among native Americans occurred when Joseph Smith sent several missionaries to the western border of Missouri in the winter of 1830-31 (Jennings 1971; Pratt 1874). In a revelation given in Missouri on 17 July 1831 Joseph Smith told these first missionaries to the Indians: "For it is my will that in time, ye should take unto you wives of the Lamanites and Nephites that their posterity may become white, delightsome and just, for even now their females are more virtuous than the gentiles." William W. Phelps included the "substance" (two pages) of the revelation in a 12 August 1861 letter to Brigham Young, now in the Church Historical Department. Several things are apparent: (1) While the Book of Mormon strongly teaches that God removes the curse of the dark skin, this document implies that intermarriage can; (2) Some scholars think that this revelation was the initial impetus for plural marriage, as some of the missionaries had wives in Ohio; and (3) This document seems to have begun the Mormon practice of marrying native Americans. Some of the contents of the document better fit an 1861 context and it is possible that Phelps added his own understanding thirty years later, Ezra Booth confirms early talk about marrying Indians, but the reasons for doing so probably did not include polygamy or even changing skin color, but rather facilitating entrance into the reservation for missionary work (Booth 1831; W. Hall 1852, 59; J. Brown 1960,320-23; Brooks 1944; Coates 1972; Stenhouse 1873,657-59; Bachman 1975,68-73). (Source, emphasis added.)

2. Joseph Smith's involvement in editing the 1840 edition of the Book of Mormon is not in dispute. The change from "white" to "pure" is clearly an editorial decision and not a printing error. Royal Skousen, the leading expert in the Book of Mormon manuscripts writes, "The 1840 change of white to pure seems to be a conscious one and was probably made by Joseph Smith as part of his editing for the 1840 edition. The change does not appear to be accidental error based on any visual of phonetic resemblance between the two words." (Analysis of Textual Variants of the Book of Mormon 2:895.)

3. The Tanners are the only ones who make the connection between Phelps' letter and 2 Nephi 30. The source of the supposed connection should be indicated in the article so that readers will understand that it is critics of the LDS Church that are drawing the connection, not Latter-day Saint leaders.

4. The connection between 2 Nephi 30 and the Phelps letter is spurious anyway, because 2 Nephi 30:6 isn't talking about Lamanites in the first place. Nephi was writing about "the remnant of our seed" (2 Nephi 30:3, 4), which would be Nephites, not Lamanites. This is possibly what prompted Joseph Smith to clarify that white meant pure, not the color white.

5. Ezra Booth's letter plays a significant role here, but it's not mentioned in the article.

In short, the entire article is useless in its present form and should be rewritten in NPOV. --MrWhipple (talk) 20:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I have added Whittaker as a reference and the key part of his analysis. Booth is now mentioned by both sides (Foster and Whitakker) now, which provides NPOV. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 20:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the changes. The article is getting somewhat disorganized and needs rewriting, IMHO. I can tackle it later today.

Good point. I rearganized into sections. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 21:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I note from your user talk page that you've recently been involved in some heated controversies with regard to POV changes to articles related to Mormonism. I note that same POV with re. to this article ("a revelation from Christ", etc.) that make me hesitant to help rewrite an article that you possibly intend to hover over. I agree with User:A Sniper when he wrote:

Your edits are fine but it still needs qualification that this is not proven nor clear-cut. Your presentation takes for granted that a) it actually occurred, b) Phelps is reliable, c) this is a 'revelation', d) that the date is correct, etc. I believe that a wider circle of editors needs to be brought into this, especially LDS users who are keen on keeping the POV down to a minimum.

"Qualification" was exactly the word I was looking for earlier. The article as it stands is very cut-and-dried, when there is a great deal of uncertainty about this situation, including if Joseph Smith even said the words Phelps attributes to him.

Adding or modifying articles to drive an agenda is not good practice.

--MrWhipple (talk) 21:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Please discuss specific content. You have made many substantive comments and criticisms on this page, and I have done my best to respond to all of them. All revelation and quotation is "qualified" and "uncertain," and the best that any Wiki article can do is present the facts in an unbiased and honest way. I believe that this is done in this article. Weasel words or phrases that impugn the published opinion of scholars have no place in a Wiki article either. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 21:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Twisting reality - why add just the 1830 edition?

It seems like there is blatant twisting of reality. Why add picture of the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon language from 2 Nephi without the corrected language from the 1840 edition? Joseph Smith specifically changed the language and it was his final correction. If you argument is that the LDS church continued to use the language from the 1841 London edition, that is a separate topic. The focus of this article is a supposed revelation, but not acknowledged by the LDS church. Further, the allegation that it is a revelation that supports polygamy, which is not supported by any LDS history scholar but the Tanners. Further, there is the attempt to present ONLY white as a color, when Joseph Smith was absolute clear that it was PURE as evidenced by his correction in the 1840 edition.

This is a perfect example of POV writing or writing to meet an agenda. A neutral approach provides the prevalent views, but his article focuses on a single viewpoint to the exclusion of all others. How does a "revelation" become a revelation but not acknowledged as such by the related church? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 04:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Simply because the 1830 version represents the revelation received by Smith at the time in 1831 when the polygamy revelation is said to be received. The 1840 version is for a decade later. This is historically accurate, relevant, and NPOV . Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 11:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, according to historian Fawn Brodie, the revelation is acknowledged by the LDS Church:

Historian Fawn Brodie was informed in 1943 by the Utah Church historian Joseph F. Smith that a revelation foreshadowing polygamy had been written in 1831, but that it had never been published, and that though its existence in the church library is acknowledged, "in conformity with the church policy," Brodie would not not be permitted to examine it. Brodie, Fawn McKay (1971). No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith (2d ed. ed.). New York: Alfred A. Knopf. p. 184. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help)

Via Church's acknowledgment of the revelation is its existence was discovered. What the Church has never done, however, is to canonize the revelation. Also, contrary to what you say, several scholars including the Tanners support the authenticity of this revelation, as documented and cited in the article. For example,

Lawrence Foster asserts that "references to the revelation by a knowledgeable contemporary apostate, Ezra Booth, only five months after its alleged delivery, tends to confirm its authenticity." Lawrence Foster (1981). Religion and Sexuality: The Shakers, the Mormons, and the Oneida Community. Oxford University Press. p. 135.

The links to these scholarly works are all right there—you may go read them for yourself. Finally, contrary to what you write, a balanced view has been presented, as discussed above. For example, the article states:

David J. Whittaker contends that in 1861 it is "possible that Phelps added his own understanding thirty years later, Ezra Booth confirms early talk about marrying Indians, but the reasons for doing so probably did not include polygamy or even changing skin color, but rather facilitating entrance into the reservation for missionary work." David J. Whittaker (1985). "Mormons and Native Americans: A Historical and Bibliographical Introduction". Dialogue. 18 (4): 35.

which counters the views of Foster, which also is NPOV. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 11:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Smith changed the language in the 1840 version supposedly to correct misunderstanding, or in other words to make clear the intent of the verse. It supercedes the 1830 language and clearly defines the proper understanding of the verse. With the correct understanding to be white as in pure and not white as in color. What you are saying is that the misunderstanding of the language of the 1830 edition more closely matches your objective and so therefore it should be the focus of the article. What you are doing is building the case to lead readers to a conclusion that was never Joseph Smith intent. Not highlighting Joseph Smith's intent is what is POV; it is the withholding of information only because it does not lead readers to the same conclusion. When the understanding is white as in pure; the "revelation" loses its intrigue.

Are "revelations" really revelations if they are not canonized? What is the meaning when something is not canonized? The canon of the LDS is the doctrine of the church. The article needs to make these issues clear, in fact they should be the focus of the article rather than the other way around.

Let's look at the first sentence of the introduction: "The Mormon practice of plural marriage is first attributed to the 1831 polygamy revelation made by Jesus Christ to church leader Joseph Smith, Jr. near Jackson County, Missouri on 17 July 1831, in which Christ proclaims that Smith's followers should take Native American brides:" This sentence does say who attributes this 1861 recording to polygamy. The sentence just declares it as if it is undisputed and the Church agrees. Whittaker makes it clear that "some scholars" think this. If that language were used the sentence would be read as much less than the current statement. More importantly, the first sentence should focus on the "revelation" not its supposed impact. It needs to answer "what is it" first. The 1831 polygamy revelation was first recorded by W.W. Phelps on 12 August 1861, who indicated that Joseph Smith allegedly revealed on the 17 July 1831 to seven of the first missionaries to the Native American people. It was first mentioned by Ezra Booth after it was allegedly given by Joseph Smith and some scholars therefore believe its authenticity. This revelation is thought to obliquely imply that plural marriage would eventually be introduced at some future point. Plural marriage was not formally recognized until twelve years later in the 1843 revelation.

This position that you are presenting is taken by some scholars and not the LDS Church to my knowledge. What is interesting to me is that it was not canonized and not recorded. It came to the fore when Brigham Young was searching for additional support for plural marriage.

My proposed language above is rough, but what it does is present the information in context. The position the article currently takes is as if it is accepted fact by all concerned, which it is not. Wikipedia reports the perspective of reliable, expert sources, the facts as seen by historians, but Wikipedia can not present "a" perspective and make the tone of the article such that it declares a truth. Does this make sense to you?

As an aside, the use of the word "alledgedly" is not recommended by Wikipedia; if used we should use the quote from the sources used, which used it several times, which I would recommend. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 15:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Please provide a citation that supports your claim that "Smith changed the language in the 1840 version supposedly to correct misunderstanding" of 2 Nephi 30:5–6. Also several important details of your proposed wording are not supported by published scholarly work; for example, it is not known that "The 1831 polygamy revelation was first recorded by W.W. Phelps on 12 August 1861": Lawrence Foster places the date in the "1850s or 1860s." Please familiarize yourself with the basics of the published history of this subject before suggesting further changes or expressing unsupported and grandiose opinions like "This is a perfect example of POV writing or writing to meet an agenda." Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 20:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Given the references you have provided I think you have already read that the 1840 edition was changed according to Joseph Smith's direction. Do you have any reference to support that Joseph was not directing the church at that time or that he assigned the editing of the Book of Mormon to someone else? That would be an historic announcement if you have that evidence and it would be taken to more places than just Wikipedia. If you did not read all your references, I would be happen to point it out to you. Are you saying that the change from white to pure was just willy-nilly or that it really did not have any meaning and was just a mistake? Ecrasez, you know better! You are denying all evidence that conflicts with your opinion.

You don't quote all of Foster's statements, Foster stated, "It was not considered of enough significance to be formally brought to the attention of Brigham Young until 1861." When he first talked about this he states, "the present copy of the revelation, in the handwriting of W W Phelps who was present on the occasion, dates from the 1850s or 1860s". However, he gives no reference whatsoever for that statement. He then later clarifies with the first quote above dating it specifically to Phelps' letter of 1861.

Whittaker states, "William W. Phelps included the "substance" (two pages) of the revelation in a 12 August 1861 letter to Brigham Young, now in the Church Historical Department." This is referenced and you have goes so far as to incluude a picture of it, but you highlight a statement that Foster does not even reference or support, but clarified later with the 1861 date. This is either sloppy editing or ignoring anything that you think may conflict with your POV. In reality, I don't see how it does and it confuses me why you use a range of dates that is meaningless. The revelation was in 1831 afterall.

You seemed to have ignored that Ezra Booth did not even consider the revelation about polygamy. Given that he is the only other witness to the revelation, this is rather significant. Booth described the revelation five months after it happened and nothing was mentioned about polygamy. Phelps writes in 1861 and it is now about polygamy. Shouldn't this conflicting position be discussed?

Image copyright?

Écrasez l'infâme, have you received permission from the copyright holders of these two images to use them in this article? If not, they should be removed immediately, per Wikipedia:Image_use_policy.--MrWhipple (talk) 14:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The copyright holders, Joseph Smith, Jr. and W. W. Phelps, both died more than 70 years ago. Photographs of copyrighted documents are not themselves copyrightable unless they add some derivative value and can be claimed to be "original works of authorship," which these images are not. See Copyright Office Basics. The relevant copyright pertains to those of the original documents, which is expired in the United States, Canada, the European Union and those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 70 years. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 19:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Propose deletion of article

The major problem with this article is that it focuses on a minor and highly debatable point in history. While it is true that some LDS and non-LDS scholars have pointed to 1831 as the origin of plural marriage, there is only one piece of evidence to support that: the Phelps letter, written in 1861. As Phelps, by his own admission, was writing from memory, there is no way that he could even hope to accurately portray what Joseph Smith said 30 years earlier. Add to that the fact that no other contemporary witnesses say anything about a polygamy revelation.

We are left then with grave doubts about the legitimacy of this purported revelation. Yet the article's tone and style show no doubt or hesitation in insisting that there really was a revelation and that Phelps accurately transmitted Joseph Smith's exact words.

The extremely tenuous nature of this event leads me to propose that it be merged into Plural_marriage#The_origin_of_plural_marriage. --MrWhipple (talk) 15:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. These assertions are merely your opinion and not supported by a single scholarly citation. In contrast, the authenticity of the facts presented in the article are supported by numerous scholarly and other citations, including:

• Historian Fawn Brodie was informed in 1943 by the Utah Church historian Joseph F. Smith that a revelation foreshadowing polygamy had been written in 1831, but that it had never been published, and that though its existence in the church library is acknowledged, "in conformity with the church policy," Brodie would not not be permitted to examine it. Brodie, Fawn McKay (1971). No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith (2d ed. ed.). New York: Alfred A. Knopf. p. 184. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help)
• Lawrence Foster asserts that "references to the revelation by a knowledgeable contemporary apostate, Ezra Booth, only five months after its alleged delivery, tends to confirm its authenticity." Lawrence Foster (1981). Religion and Sexuality: The Shakers, the Mormons, and the Oneida Community. Oxford University Press. p. 135.
• H. Michael Marquardt (1999). The Joseph Smith Revelations: Text and Commentary. Signature Books.
• Leonard J. Arrington (1992). The Mormon Experience: A History of the Latter-Day Saints. University of Illinois Press. p. 195. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthor= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• Tanner, Jerald and Sandra (1987). Mormonism—Shadow or Reality?. Utah Lighthouse Ministry. p. 91. ISBN 9993074438.

Given this indisputable support for the facts presented in the article, one is left to wonder what the actual reason is for your desire to delete the article and suppress these facts. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 19:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The quoting of the possibility of a revelation by a handful of scholars does not make it a revelation or even an actual event that happened. I repeat: the only evidence that Joseph Smith revealed polygamy in 1831 is one letter written 30 years later. Ezra Booth's contemporary letter says nothing about polygamy, only marriage to Amerindians.

I also object to your accusation that I want to "suppress these facts", because it is you who are pushing late and tenuous stories as "facts" in the first place. Please tell me the content of a single conversation you had 30 years ago. I dare say you couldn't even summarize it.

On the other hand, one is left to wonder, based on your editing history, if you have an agenda to embarrass the LDS Church by elevating hearsay to the level of "fact."--MrWhipple (talk) 20:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

More nonsense. Please provide the precise page citation and quote of the scholarly work cited that says that the 1831 polygamy revelation is merely the "possibility of a revelation." Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 21:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a citation by the LDS Church that it is a revelation of Joseph Smith? You don't like to answer questions, but what do you call a revelation that is not recognized by the respective church? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 21:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, as stated above:

Historian Fawn Brodie was informed in 1943 by the Utah Church historian Joseph F. Smith that a revelation foreshadowing polygamy had been written in 1831, but that it had never been published, and that though its existence in the church library is acknowledged, "in conformity with the church policy," Brodie would not not be permitted to examine it. Brodie, Fawn McKay (1971). No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith (2d ed. ed.). New York: Alfred A. Knopf. p. 184. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help)

It appears that Ecrasez is already moving forward with the merge; he is not adding this material to the main article on polygamy. I agree with the merge; let's move forward.--Storm Rider ^(talk) 21:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I simply cited relevant excerpts from this article in another related one. This article stands alone and the proposal to merge it appears to stem rather from the discomfort you express with the facts presented in it. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 21:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It is not the facts you have presented, it is the facts you have left out. You have essentially taken a fringe concept and promoted it as if it was mainstream. I think you will find many scholars that disagree with this position. If this really is the first revelation about polygamy, the information belongs in the main article. If you are saying that this topic is so controversial that it requires its own article to cover all of the issues, then I may be convinced. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 22:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

24 June 08 rewrite

I've rewritten the article to add more hesitation on questionable or tenuous items of history. I also added the Booth letter, put the sections in the article into a more logical order, and removed the superfluous wikilinks (it's enough to link Joseph Smith, Jr. once, the first time it appears). I'm comfortable enough with this version to remove the {neutrality} tag, assuming others agree.--MrWhipple (talk) 22:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Joseph Smith and the recording of revelations

Joseph Smith always recorded his revelations, generally a scribe, throughout the early years of the Church. Has anyone ever read why this revelation was never recorded by Joseph Smith? Are there other examples where a revelation was supposedly given, but it was not recorded at the time?

The article states that Phelps was acting as a scribe for Joseph, but did not share the revelation until 30 years later. I am not aware of another situation like that. They kept such meticulous records at the time, this one is an anomaly. The current references simply don't address it, rather they take the position that it was a reality without ever asking why it was handled so differently, which I find strange for historians. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 02:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Phelps was Joseph Smith's sometime scribe during the Book of Abraham translation. He was not Joseph Smith's scribe in July 1831.--MrWhipple (talk) 02:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Arrington's position

Arrington makes no claim about the "revelation". In fact, he states, "A recently discovered document is a copy of a purported revelation of 1831 that instructed seven missionaries in Missouri as follows:..." He follows it up with the following statement, "Obviously possibilities were being considered in the early 1830's, but he new system was not then formally established or widely discussed.

Arrington does not endorse the "revelation", but describes it as purported. Further, the most he says is that there is a possibility that Joseph Smith may have begun to think about it. He later says, "When did the crucial authorizing revelation occur? Closely related is the question of when and to what extent was plural marriage practiced during the lifetime of Joseph Smith. There is no precise answer." The current introduction paints Arrington as supportive of this position this article attempts to take, which is not accurate. He states clearly that there is not precise answer; hardly a supportive position of the purported revelation. We are going to have to read these references more carefully before we start putting words in authors' mouths. Has anyone checked the other references? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 02:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Arrington's quote you cite answers the question he poses at the beginning of the same paragraph:

Could it have been the prophesized and hoped-for conversion of the Indians that prompted the Prophet to consider a new system of marriage? … [Discussion of the revelation] … Obviously possibilities were being considered in the early 1830's, but he new system was not then formally established or widely discussed.

Therefore, Arrington concludes that the 1831 revelation is staring point of the practice of polygamy, which is also Foster's conclusion. It is therefore correct to include Arrington in the list of historians supporting this conclusion. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 15:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Taking Arrington's "could have been" and "possibilities" and concluding that he argued "the 1831 revelation is staring [sic] point of the practice of polygamy" is quite a leap. Arrington was being cautious and tenuous in his methodology; you're twisting his words to make the conclusion you want to make. --MrWhipple (talk) 15:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. You are misreading the text. Arrington answers his own question "Could it have been …?" (not "could have been") with the answer that Smith was "obviously" considering the possibility in the early 1830's. MrWhipple, you would do well to lay off the empty ad hominems, leave your emotions at the door, and focus on the contect and logic. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 16:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

First of all, you need to look up ad hominem. Once you do, you'll discover that it is not questioning the motivations of another person. An example of ad hominem would be, "Écrasez l'infâme is writing about Mormonism, but Écrasez l'infâme is an anti-Mormon, so you know we can't trust anything Écrasez l'infâme writes." That is a far cry from what I am doing, which is questioning your agenda and how that agenda is driving your creation and editing of this spurious article.

Secondly, it is you who is misreading Arrington. "Obviously possibilities were being considered" is a far cry from "Arrington concludes that the 1831 revelation is staring point of the practice of polygamy." --MrWhipple (talk) 16:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

E, you seem to have completely avoided Arrington's summary, "there is no precise answer". You are putting words in Arrington's mouth. He reports on the purported revelation that is all. Before we start quoting historians, we have to be positive that is their position; this is anything but clear. It is strange that you want to make it clear when it is not; why? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

We all agree (1) that Arrington connects the revelation with Smith's plans for polygamy, and (2) that there is no earlier polygamy revelation. (1) and (2) logically imply that that the 1831 revelation is staring point of the practice of polygamy, which is in fact Arrington and Foster's conclusion. That's why Arringtom says

Obviously possibilities were being considered in the early 1830's

based upon the facts of the 1831 revelation. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 18:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Ummm, no we do not all agree to those things. Arrington's statement that "Obviously possibilities were being considered in the early 1830's" could relate to a number of other events and discussions, including Joseph's marriage to Fanny Alger in 1835. The questionable 1831 statement is a possible starting point. Once again, you're reading too much into Arrington.--MrWhipple (talk) 19:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

MrWhipple, that's Arrington's answer to the question he poses at the beginning of the very same paragraph.

Could it have been the prophesized and hoped-for conversion of the Indians that prompted the Prophet to consider a new system of marriage?

Go back and read it again. This paragraph and section have absolutely nothing to do with Joseph's marriage to Fanny Alger in 1835, or any other subject but the 1831 polygamy revelation. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 19:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

You are forcing Arrington to say something that he clearly is not saying by taking statements out of context. Arrington offers that there is the POSSIBILITY that the concept may have been in Smith's mind by the recounting of this statement by Phelps. HOWEVER, he never once comes close to endorsing this as factual. He does not even comes close to endorsing it, rather he states there is no precise answer to when it started. Why do you ignore his summary statement?

You continue to completely ignore the only contemporary interpretation of the statement by Booth. He states unequivocally that it was about facilitating missionary work. As an active apostate, had this been about plural marriage, he would shouted this from the roof tops. He does not; he completely, totally ignores it.

What was the benefit to the LDS Church of later saying it was about polygamy? To gain strength to their position that plural marriage was considered even earlier than once thought. More interesting is that this purported revelation as always been cited as such by your sources, "purported" or "alleged". No source is unequivocal in calling it an accepted revelation. It made it into no notes, no discourses, no other recounting except by Booth, who said it was related to missionary work and then out of the blue comes Phelps with 30 year recall writes a recollection that just so happens to strengthen the LDS claim that plural marriage was discussed even earlier than first thought. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 19:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Further, I would compeltely disagree with your statement that we agree on things just above. We do not. Arrington reports on the purported revelation; nothing more than that. Agreed, there is no earlier discussion on plural marriages; however, I don't agree that this is about plural marriage at all. You are synthesizing; you are mixing practice (which there is no evidence of) with a thought process of Smith. The allegation is the Smith began to think about it as a concept. I don't even agree with that; the topic of his discussion was missionary work among Native Americans and not plural marriage. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 19:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I simply take Arrington at his word when he says Obviously possibilities [for polygamy] were being considered [by Smith] in the early 1830's as the concluding statement in a paragraph that asks this question. Your other comments are unrelated to this issue. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 19:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

No, you are distorting what he says. How do you ignore his summary statement? Why would you? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 19:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's call an ace and ace, and a spade a spade...

Visorstuff's edits are going in the right direction to make the article balanced and focused. Écrasez l'infâme, on the other hand, wants to make the article a mirror version of the Tanners' web page. (The insistence on using the Tanners' phrase "Indian Polygamy Revelation" gives a lot away. Also the insistence on saying it's a revelation "from Jesus", trying to give weight to a document that has lighter-than-air qualities).

The Tanners (and the Tanners' use of Foster) are not NPOV by any means. They are not historians, they are polemicists. It's one thing to reference them; it's something quite different to build an article around their arguments and what they think is "relevant".

Écrasez l'infâme, you've been tweaking other Mormon polygamy articles as well, adding a POV slant. Please stop. Let's work together to build a quality article based on scholarship. Don't ask me for specific problems, as I've listed them multiple times above. --MrWhipple (talk) 02:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

(1) The alleged revelation is not by Smith, it's by Jesus to Smith, which is relevant because most of the other alleged revelations to Smith were not, and making this detail clear is important. (2) The simple fact that this is called the "Indian Polygamy Revelation" by the Tanners is itself NPOV. Naming details like this usually go in the intro, but this is a minor point. At the very least, it should be cited. If you don't like this one sentence, just delete it, and let's see how it reads. Finally, please lay off the ad hominems and stick to the content—it will be a lot more efficient and pleasant. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 03:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Phelps as scribe; Date of Phelps' letter

1. W.W. Phelps was an occasional scribe for Joseph Smith during the 1835 work on the Book of Abraham. To call him "Joseph Smith's scribe" in this article leaves the mistaken impression that in July 1831 Phelps' job was to write down Joseph's revelations. This leads to undue weight being given to his 1861 document.

2. Foster's date range of 1850-1860 is imprecise because he didn't know the date and was guessing. Whittaker and Hyrum Andrus both give the exact date based on knowledge. That date should be in the article; using Foster's early range puts the writing closer to the 1831 events and gives undue credence to the 1861 document.

This is the kind of stuff I'm talking about when I mention "agenda." --MrWhipple (talk) 16:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. The years of Phelps' clerical involvement as Smith's scribe were 1831-1844 and enumerated at the web page Writings of Joseph Smith. Specifically, Phelps was Smith's scribe for:

• Revelations: Kirtland revelation book, Unbound revelations, Bible revision, Book of Abraham
• Egyptian MSS
• Autobiographical/Historical Writings

The latter being highly relevant to this article. Not describing Phelps as Smith's scribe in the article is inaccurate and POV. Who has the agenda here? Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 16:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I just saw your note here, and we're both probably getting close (if not past) WP:3RR on this one subject. I view our edits on this point as constructive so far, so I won't count our edits on this point if you don't. Anyway, I believe that this settles the matter of Phelps' as Smith's scribe. Please let me know if you have further concerns. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 17:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Phelps is listed three times among many other people in a large time frame. He was not Smith's personal scribe during the entire periods indicated, nor was he in the position of making transcriptions in July 1831; at that time he was a new convert from Kirtland who had come to Missouri to create a printing office. --MrWhipple (talk) 16:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Note the Phelps family history page identifies W.W. as assisting Emma Smith in preparing the 1835 LDS hymnal and working on the Book of Abraham project. --MrWhipple (talk) 16:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Even better: Saints Without Halos gives Phelps' exact dates of scribal work. No 1831, sorry. --MrWhipple (talk) 16:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Please go read the reliable source! Here is what it says explicitly:

• "Known scribes for Joseph Smith with life dates (in parenthesis) and approximate years of their clerical involvement: … William W. Phelps (1792-1872), 1831-1844"

This settles the question. If you have another reliable source that places Phelps' role as Smith's scribe at different dates, please add it to the article. You are wasting a lot of effort arguing with the clearly stated facts presented in reliable sources. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 17:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

This is insane. I just gave you the reference showing Phelps calling as a scribe in 1835! --MrWhipple (talk) 17:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Ecrasez, I think you know that called someone Joseph's scribe gives the impression that it was his major association, his job. I don't think any scholar would ever think of W.W. Phelps in that manner. I think what you mean to imply is the Phelps occasionally served as Smith's scribe. Is that a better description?

Also, are you saying that Phelps was asked to be Smith's scribe at this specific event? If that is the case, do you have any references where Joseph has identified him as such or another individual who would know of this calling?

I like you word nonsense; let's cut it out and stop clinging to positions that are at best synthesis and at worst falsehood. When Whipple talks about agenda, he is talking about this seeming desire to draw a specific conclusion on subjects that are less then clear. This purported revelation is anything but clear. The only reference to it at the time was Booth and he states it was mostly about missionary work. I think the more interesting story is how it was used later to support polygamy by the church; to add weight to the question of plural marriage. That is followed by a few historians who specialize in polygamy and the Tanners who have jumped on the wagon. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Phelps was baptized 16 June 1831 and left two days later on a trip to Missouri with Joseph Smith, Sidney Rigdon, Martin Harris, Edward Partridge, Joseph Coe, and A. Sidney Gilbert. He was ordained to the priesthood on 1 October 1831. Joseph Smith began work on the BofA scrolls on 3 July 1835 "with W. W. Phelps and Oliver Cowdery as scribes." Joseph's first scribe for keeping a history of events was Frederick G. Williams, who started writing for Joseph on 20 July 1831. Reliable source --MrWhipple (talk) 17:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Also supported by the fact that Phelps was in Jackson County Missouri as a church leader and printer there between 1832 and 1835. But then this causes issues with Fosters poor research (he should have caught the discrepancy as others including Arrington had, or he discarded it to push an agenda) and Phelps recollection that this was clarified by Smith in 1834, as the clarification would have to have come by letter (and no copy exists) as Phelps was not near Smith during the time. Oh the intricities of recalled memories. In any case, 1835 is correct. -Visorstuff (talk) 17:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge with other article?

I'm still interested in merging this with another article like Joseph Smith, Jr. and polygamy. The same material in this article has been essentially replicated over there, where E has made the same over-the-top claims. Discuss. --MrWhipple (talk) 18:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

BTW, the Joseph Smith, Jr. and polygamy section on the 1831 claims is just as much a mess as this article is. Perhaps we could get this one into decent shape and then do the merge, overwriting the existing material on the other page.--MrWhipple (talk) 18:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Another reason to merge this article is the very title is inaccurate and POV: It presumes that there was a revelation on polygamy in 1831, when the evidence is from a single, late, highly questionable source. --MrWhipple (talk) 22:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Back to the question of merging this article: It would seem to me that this material is better suited in Joseph Smith, Jr. and polygamy for at least the following reasons:

1. We can introduce other early polygamy references, including Orson Pratt's statements about polygamy teaching starting as early as 1831 or 1832 (he made claims to both dates on different occasions), as well as the first possible plural marriage to Fanny Alger.
2. It would reduce the POV nature of this article, which, by its very title, posits that there was an 1831 revelation.
3. It would also provide some balance by allowing us to reduce the speculative connections to 2 Nephi 30 (a claim which only the Mormon critics Jerald and Sandra Tanner have made).--MrWhipple (talk) 16:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. See the merge proposal and discussion over at the other article.--MrWhipple (talk) 16:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Reliable Sources versus Personal Opinions and POV

Several editors are intent on deleting relevant facts provided by reliable sources with which they disagree and replacing them with dates provided by other reliable sources with which they agree. This is especially true of dates. In the case of a scholarly conflict, especially when the disputed facts are relevant:

• It is NPOV to cite the conflicting facts provided both reliable sources.
• It is POV to delete verifiable relevant facts from reliable sources with which you disagree.
• It is not appropriate to delete relevant facts supported by reliable sources based upon nothing but personal opinions. See WP:PRESERVE.
• The exception is when there exists a reliable sources that demonstrates to the satisfaction of Wiki consensus which conflicting assertion is correct.

For example, when Visorstuff accuses Foster of "poor research" and "push[ing] an agenda," he is entitled to his opinion, but this opinion is not the basis of the verifiability required in a Wiki article, and could not be used as a justifiction for deleting Foster's research. I will restore the conflicting dates for the Phelps letter and for his service as Smith scribe. I would ask other editors to not make POV edits by deleting relevant facts supported by reliable sources, but would invite them instead to provide sources that decide the issue of the conflicting dates and present them here; this is not accomplished simply by citing another reliable sources with a different date. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 19:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Quite the contrary, it is you who are trying to add sources with which you agree, to the detriment of sources that have more specific or accurate information. Agenda? --MrWhipple (talk) 19:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

That is correct, I am trying to add reliable sources to this article. What I am objecting to is your insistence on deleting them in violation of WP:PRESERVE. It's nice that you believe that your sources are "more specific or accurate," but without a reliable source to back you up, that's just your opinion, and cannot be the rationale for editing an article. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 19:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I must say that you have a strange understanding of what a "reliable source" is and what it means to "preserve" them. What is really going on here is that we are putting data from more reliable sources that is superior to the sources you are providing; but because the superior sources don't fit with your desire to have readers believe, for example, that Phelps was Joseph Smith's scribe in July 1831, you try to pull WP:PRESERVE on us. Unbelievable. --MrWhipple (talk) 19:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

It's nice that you believe that your sources are "more specific or accurate," but without a reliable source to back you up, that's just your opinion, and cannot be the rationale for editing an article. What is your rationale for challenging these sources? Exclaiming "Unbelievable" does not count as a rationale. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 19:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Écrasez l'infâme asked me to look over this discussion and weigh in. Generally, I find myself unimpressed by Écrasez l'infâme's method of argument. On the specific issue of the dates of W.W. Phelps' association with J. Smith, it seems to me that User:MrWhipple has demonstrated his point and Écrasez has failed to effectively respond to it. There are also several points at which Storm Rider has asked pointed and highly relevant questions of Écrasez, who has failed to respond.

I have not previously heard of the topic of this article, though I am fairly well conversant with Mormonism and Mormon origins. My primary concern is that there are a lot of polemicists out there, both pro-Mormon and anti-Mormon, and much care should be taken in determining which sources are truly reliable. In general, it seems to me that Storm Rider is mediating this dispute effectively. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 04:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Please BlueMoonlet, lets speak to the content and the issues - passing judgment on the editors will only escalate an already heated debate, by vindicating one side, and alienating another. I think Écrasez was asking you to weigh in on the topic of discussion, not the discussion itself. --Descartes1979 (talk) 07:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

All right, striking the sentence in which I unhelpfully criticized Écrasez. I apologize for my clumsiness. I think the rest of what I wrote does address the content and not the editors. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 12:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I should add that Écrasez asked me to look into this dispute because certain "editors appear to be fixated on endowing it with a particular POV and deleting relevant cited information". I think it's appropriate for me to say that I find no evidence of such misconduct. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 13:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

BlueMoonlet and Descartes1979, thank you for taking the time to stop by and have a look. Though it would be easy to link to other supporting evidence, ironically, a very recent edit in response to these very comments illustrates the problem. I took the trouble to edit in a very important part of the subsequent history of this subject (as well as simple typos), and these have been deleted without any rationale whatsoever:

However, Smith declared days before his murder by a mob after acting as acting as mayor of Nauvoo, Illinois he ordered the destruction of the critical Nauvoo Expositor newspaper and declared martial law in Nauvoo, that his 1843 polygamy revelation

"was in answer to a question concerning things which transpired in former days, and had no reference to the present time"

[italics in Clark (1968)], a statement that appeared in the Nauvoo Neighbor of June 19, 1844, but was omitted from the History of the Church.

• Jerome Leslie Clark (1968). 1844: Religious Movements. Vol. 1. Nashville, TN: Southern Publishing Association. p. 157.

Certainly deleting this highly relevant, factual and cited information violates both the letter and spirit of WP:PRESERVE. Is the problem apparent now? Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 15:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I see MrW's comment below, will respond there. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 15:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Rationale is given in the new section, below--MrWhipple (talk) 15:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Please see this section for an illustration of the problem. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 16:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Michael Marquardt reference

Ecrasez, do you have an actual reference for your statement by Marquardt rather than just a referral to his book. I am slowly trying to verify the references and there is nothing to verify. Until such time as you can produce the actual reference it is not appropriate to use and so I have deleted it again. Please do not add it back until we can actually determine what he said. There seems to be a problem with using actual positions. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 20:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

It should be fairly easy to validate the reference if it is on Google books - just search for the phrasing. Is there a need to remove the reference? --Descartes1979 (talk) 07:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I added it a day ago or so. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 15:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Écrasez l'infâme's 27 June edit

I removed Écrasez l'infâme's most recent edit for the following reasons:

• It does not relate to the supposed 1831 revelation, but to reasons for Joseph Smith's death. It may be more appropriate in another article.
• It is highly POV.

Let's please stick to the 1831 issue on this article.--MrWhipple (talk) 15:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Écrasez l'infâme, please stop citing WP:PRESERVE to us every time something you add gets deleted. If you actually read WP:PRESERVE, you'll see that there is a list of exceptions that include "irrelevancy," "patent nonsense," and "inaccuracy." --MrWhipple (talk) 15:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, I added in a quote from a reliable source in which Smith repudiates his 1843 polygamy revelation on 1843-06-18 or so, with the implication that he repudiated polygamy in general days before his murder. Certainly this information is highly relevant in the section of an article about "Subsequent Mormon polygamy doctrine." That you characterize this edit being unrelated suggests that you did not read the edit, which says in part:

However, Smith declared days before his murder by a mob after acting as acting as mayor of Nauvoo, Illinois he ordered the destruction of the critical Nauvoo Expositor newspaper and declared martial law in Nauvoo, that his 1843 polygamy revelation

"was in answer to a question concerning things which transpired in former days, and had no reference to the present time"

[italics in Clark (1968)], a statement that appeared in the Nauvoo Neighbor of June 19, 1844, but was omitted from the History of the Church.

• Jerome Leslie Clark (1968). 1844: Religious Movements. Vol. 1. Nashville, TN: Southern Publishing Association. p. 157.

This is not "patent nonsense" or "inaccurate," but factual, highly relevant information from a reliable source, that you label it such again suggests that you are not reading the information that you delete. You are free to edit anything that you believe is POV or inaccurate, but please read first and do your best to observe the letter and spirit of WP:PRESERVE. I will add the information back and invite you to edit it to actually make constructive improvements to the article. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 15:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

First, the major problem here is that single portion of a much longer quote doesn't give any of the rest of us the opportunity to examine Clark's claim. The sentence in itself is meaningless -- it could relate to a hundred other things. The book is not available via Google. Please give the rest of (at least) the paragraph so we know that what you're citing is relevant.

Second, any possible repudiation of polygamy by Joseph Smith should go in the Joseph Smith, Jr. and polygamy article, not in this article. The "Subsequent polygamy doctrine" section should be very brief, and link to other articles.

Third, your characterization of the events surrounding the Expositor is POV, and needs balance.

I'll remove any reinsertion of Clark material until you can demonstrate that her work is reliable and relates to the subject at hand, and that you can present it in a balanced way.--MrWhipple (talk) 16:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Your actions and demands prove my assertion above that you are willfully deleting citations to reliable sources based upon nothing but your own personal opinions. These are scholarly publications, reviewed in the literature. I can do a Google search just as easily as you to show that they are reliable. One review of Jerome Leslie Clark's 1844 in the Journal of American History says:

"1844 is fairly accurate and perceptive"

BTW, "Jerome Leslie Clark" is a male name, so he's not a "her," further suggesting that you do not read the information you delete, and appear to be raising these false issues simply to be disruptive. This information is highly relevant, factual, and reliable, and should be in this article. Clark's full quote is just as easily available at Google—do the work yourself to see his full quote, which is already fairly represented. I will let others weigh in before restoring it. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 16:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with Clark being a "reliable source" (a phrase you seem to enjoy throwing around), but about the single fragment of one of Clark's sentences (a) actually being evidence of what you claim it is, (b) being relevant in any way to the 1831 document, and (c) being encapsulated with your unbalanced summary of the Expositor affair. If you have access to Clark's full quote, then please provide it (or a link to it) so that the rest of us can examine it. We have reason to doubt your "reliable sources" because you have made several claims within the article that were not backed up the by sources you cite.--MrWhipple (talk) 16:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Prove it. Your statements violate Wiki's policy to assume good faith. For others that stop by, here are some links to Clark's words here, here, and here. Clark says:

Then, in an incredible statement Smith declared that his 1843 polygamy revelation "was in answer to a question concerning things which transpired in former days, and had no reference to the present time." This statement appeared in the Nauvoo Neighbor of June 19, 1844, but was omitted from the History of the Church.

(from Jerome Leslie Clark (1968). 1844: Religious Movements. Vol. 1. Nashville, TN: Southern Publishing Association. p. 157.) Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 16:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, puh-lease. This has nothing to do with good faith and everything to do with making sure that your sources are saying what you claim they're saying. Other editors have taken your material out for that very reason. All I'm asking is that you give us Clark's statement in context. Until you do, I can only assume that you haven't read it yourself. Please stop playing the victim and throwing up links to WP policies as a smokescreen.--MrWhipple (talk) 16:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Currently, this is a subarticle to the main article on polygamy. As such, it should deal strictly with the 1831 revelation and not with the major topic; that is the purpose of a subarticle. I am surprised that you are opposed to the merger when so many of your edits on all three articles indicate your desire to treat them as a single subject. I think the deletion of the material was appropriate because it does not deal with the specific topic. Let's not create several articles that are redundant. There are already too many articles that cover Mormon topics and creating more, as you have done Ecrasez, and then repeat the same thing in all three is not beneficial. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 16:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

This accusation is false. I have never, ever misrepresented the sources that I've used—I invite anyone to provide a single link that demonstrates this false allegation. As discussed elsewhere, another editor has complained that such accusations fit a pattern of "using such false accusations as a tool in intimidating others and casting doubts on other editors' reputations." The false accusation here that I have ever misrepresented the sources I've included fits this unfortunate behavior. Please stop changing the subject, stop making false accusations, and stop deleting reliable and relevant factual information from this article. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 17:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

You must be replying to someone else; my comments deal solely with the topic of the article and what information should belong it; if it does not deal strictly with the 1831 "revelation" it does not belong in a sub article. Redundant additions to every article are discouraged.

Now as far as not using references appropriately, you have not done so in the past. You specifically ignored Arrington's position by stripping out a phrase and using it as if it condones the position, which Arrington clearly said was not his position. When you strip out a single phrase, ignore the conclusion, that is misusing references. You know this and it has been pointed out to you several times and each time you ignored it. I can only assume you prefer to misuse references rather than treat the subject in a NPOV manner. I would caution you to simply answer questions asked of you and not ignore them. If someone asks for the complete paragraph, give it to them so that the issue can be clarified and all can move on. If you don't have access to the reference just say so; then others can attempt to produce the reference you are looking for. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, Storm. Écrasez has duplicated perhaps 50% of same material across several articles. Consolidating it makes a lot of sense.--MrWhipple (talk) 16:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

WRT Écrasez bolded quote above: That's better, but it's not enough. What "former days" was Joseph Smith talking about? 1831? Old Testament times? How does this relate to the supposed 1831 revelation? Unfortunately, Clark's text is not available online, and neither is the Nauvoo Neighbor for that date. Sorry, need more.--MrWhipple (talk) 17:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

You're stonewalling and being obstructive. There is no reason to doubt the reliable source I've quoted, and one suspects that even if a photograph of the Nauvoo Neighbor from June 19, 1844 were posted, you'd demand proof that it had not been doctored. I've proven the factual basis of this important quote from Smith to the standards required by Wiki. On what basis do you oppose their inclusion in the article? Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 17:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The section on Arrington, above is one example of how you've used a source to make a claim when that source didn't say what you claimed he did. No one is "stonewalling," "changing the subject" or "making false accusations" -- I'm asking you to demonstrate that Clark says what you say he says. Have you read Clark? You can't seem to come up with more than a single sentence of his work, which leads me to believe you're quoting him from an as-yet-unrevealed third-hand source. In short, stop whining about "reliable and relevant factual information" and starting demonstrating how Clark's single sentence relates to the claimed 1831 revelation, because it is not remotely clear what Clark is talking about.--MrWhipple (talk) 17:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I invite anyone to read the Arrington section—the dispute was simply whether his conclusion "Obviously possibilities were being considered in the early 1830's" implied that he concluded Mormon polygamy doctrine commenced in 1831.

"you're quoting him from an as-yet-unrevealed third-hand source": I just gave you the web links! Click them yourself! Is your mouse button broken or something?! Here they are again here, here, and here!!

Your other points are irrelevant. I'll say again: I've proven the factual basis of this important quote from Smith to the standards required by Wiki. On what basis do you oppose their inclusion in the article? Please explain, by actually citing Wiki policy on reliable sources, or any other policy for editing articles you deem relevant. Finally, you would do well to reflect on Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement and avoid the simple "contradiction with little or no evidence" part of dispute resolution:

Try to stay in the top three sections of this hierarchy.

Let's start again. Here is the issue being discussed. I claim that Clark's quote,

Then, in an incredible statement Smith declared that his 1843 polygamy revelation "was in answer to a question concerning things which transpired in former days, and had no reference to the present time." This statement appeared in the Nauvoo Neighbor of June 19, 1844, but was omitted from the History of the Church.

(from Jerome Leslie Clark (1968). 1844: Religious Movements. Vol. 1. Nashville, TN: Southern Publishing Association. p. 157.) is highly relevant in the section of an article about "Subsequent Mormon polygamy doctrine" because it claims that Smith repudiated his 1843 polygamy revelation, with the implication that he repudiated polygamy in general. I've proven the factual basis of this important quote from Smith to the standards required by Wiki. On what basis do you oppose their inclusion in the article? Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 17:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

[Sigh.] I oppose it on four grounds:

1. It is not at all clear what Joseph Smith was talking about from the short blurb in Clark's paragraph. I would like to see the context of Smith's quote from the Nauvoo Neighbor. All other things being equal, however, I'm willing to give Clark the benefit of the doubt. But all other things aren't equal, which leads me to:
2. There is nothing in the Clark paragraph nor his quotation of Smith to indicate that "Smith repudiated his 1843 polygamy revelation, with the implication that he repudiated polygamy in general," as you claim. This is why I want to see more of Clark -- to see if he's actually saying what you claim he is.
3. This article is about the so-called 1831 revelation, not about Joseph Smith and polygamy in general. If Joseph Smith actually repudiated polygamy (which is highly doubtful, but I'll go along with it for the sake of argument), then that belongs in the Joseph Smith, Jr. and polygamy article, not here. You are needlessly duplicating material across several articles.

As to Clark's reliability, so far no scholar has found any evidence that Joseph Smith publicly claimed to have received a revelation in 1843; it was only revealed several years after his death. If Clark has found evidence of such, he is the first and only scholar to do so, which gives me great pause when including his material.--MrWhipple (talk) 17:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

And your links to Google books don't allow me to read the entire page of Clark's book -- only a small window with three lines. I repeat -- do you have access to a copy of Clark's entire book, or even the chapter, or even the entire page you're quoting from?--MrWhipple (talk) 17:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I am wrong, and apologize for my confusion. After reading it again, the quote is Hyrum Smith's, not his brother Joseph's; Hyrum spoke immediately before Joseph about the 1843 polygamy revelation at the Nauvoo city council meeting of 1844-06-08, whose purpose was to denounce the accusations of Mormon licentiousness made in the Nauvoo Expositor. A full account is given in the histories:

• H. Michael Marquardt (2005). The Rise of Mormonism: 1816–1844. Grand Rapids, MI: Xulon Press. p. 632. ISBN 1597814709.
• H. Michael Marquardt (1999). The Joseph Smith Revelations: Text and Commentary. Signature Books. p. 312.
• Jerome Leslie Clark (1968). 1844: Religious Movements. Vol. 1. Nashville, TN: Southern Publishing Association. p. 157.
• William Earl La Rue (1919). The Foundations of Mormonism: A Study of the Fundamental Facts in the History and Doctrines of the Mormons from Original Sources. New York: Fleming H. Revell Company. p. 215.

This event is important and does represent an effort made by Smith and his brother to answer the charges of polygamy made against him, and should be represented briefly in this article, and more fully elsewhere on Wiki. I will go back and fix my mistake. Please feel free to edit in any way, either to change anything that you believe is POV or any other mistake that I may make. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 18:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the correction. I appreciate your candor.

The material, however, still does not belong here. It may belong in Joseph Smith, Jr. and polygamy. Please do not replicate material that is not about the 1831 document here.--MrWhipple (talk) 18:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's have that discussion based upon content. I'll make the edit, you criticize the content of the edit. I claim that it does. Please be open open-minded, and attempt to improve my attempt. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 18:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

No, let's not have that discussion. TO REEMPHASIZE AN IMPORTANT POINT: It is poor practice to go around to every article that even remotely relates to Joseph Smith and polygamy and insert the same level of heavy detail and POV. Each article should focus, as much as possible, on the topic at hand, with (VERY) brief mentions of other articles where additional information can be obtained.--MrWhipple (talk) 18:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Especially, I might add, when the voting at the merge proposal at the main article is leaning heavily toward combining this article into that one.--MrWhipple (talk) 19:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Écrasez directed me to this thread in particular as an illustration of the general problem he sees around here. That was at 16:26, and perhaps he would say differently now that he has retracted his claim about Joseph Smith in 1843. Even so, the state of this thread at 16:26 does not show any misconduct on the part of Écrasez's debating partners. What I see is that Écrasez has produced a quote from Jerome L. Clark out of context, which is not to say that he is misusing it, but that the context is not provided. Without any evidence that Clark is saying what Écrasez claims he is saying, and without any evidence that Clark is a reliable source ("fairly accurate" is hardly a ringing endorsement from the JAH), MrWhipple and Storm Rider are quite right to question the edit and revert it. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 01:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Can we pause all the haggling until after the merge?

I propose we stop all edits on this page until the merge is complete. I think we have good deal of consensus to where I feel comfortable executing the merge tonight. After the merge, we can pick up these discussions on the new page where the final text will rest.--Descartes1979 (talk) 20:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Just saw your request after I posted the section below. Agreed.--MrWhipple (talk) 20:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Remove "Subsequent" section

This entire section is misleading because it claims that the next revelation on polygamy wasn't until 1843, when there was A LOT of water under the bridge between 1831 and 1843. Also it reintroduces the Nauvoo Neighbor material which has no bearing on the 1831 claimed revelation, is unbalanced in its presentation of Nauvoo polygamy, and simply restates the same material from other articles. Let's wait for the merge and then we can tackle a unified article that has some balance and proper historical context.--MrWhipple (talk) 20:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)