Talk:Origin of Latter Day Saint polygamy/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Church of Christ (Temple Lot) position on polygamy

Yesterday, I went to the Temple Lot visitor's center and spoke with Mr. William Sheldon about their church's position on this polygamy issue. He said to me, (if he was correct and if my memory serves me correctly - I may be mistaken) that:

1. Their church suspects/thinks that Joseph Smith Jr. probably had something to do with the original introduction of the doctrine of polygamy.
2. They believe that Joseph Smith Jr. never publicly advocated polygamy.
3. They believe that Joseph Smith Jr. never practiced polygamy himself.
4. They believe that Joseph Smith Jr. did write the "polygamy revelation" but that it was not inspired.
5. They believe that Joseph Smith Jr., in the last few years before his death, was trying to "put down" (those were Mr. Sheldon's words, and I think he meant in the sense of "eliminate") the polygamy doctrine.
6. They believe that Joseph Smith Jr. believed that polygamy was wrong at the time of his death, and would be preaching against it if he was alive today.

I may have gotten parts of this wrong, but I was given some pamphlets that I may be able to use to verify the accuracy of this information. Basically, it seemed an odd blend between the RLDS and LDS positions.

As I've been saying for a while now, this whole issue is not black-and-white, scholars-versus-crackpots history. This is a very controversial history that have intelligent people not only on "both sides" but on the sides of not only two, but a whole spectrum of different views. And yes, there is obviously a majority (particularly among academics) that subscribes to a certain view, but that does not make the majority view the objective truth. (or, in the case of Wikipedia, the Neutral Point of View) --BenMcLean 23:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

While I find this interesting - the above is all original research. Is there any publications on the views of this denomination.

I think I failed to mention that I got some pamphlets that ought to document those points, and that I will read through them and see if they are or contain credible sources. Research has to start somewhere. --BenMcLean 20:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Traditional RLDS position on polygamy

Source: http://www.centerplace.org/library/Study/GCRall.htm

Adopted April 7, 1870.

No. 107. That this conference do appoint a committee of five to draft and present before this conference shall adjourn a memorial to Congress in which shall be embodied an epitome of our faith, and especially a setting forth of our views on government, church policy, and polygamy.

(Said memorial, as approved by the conference, is as follows):

Memorial to Congress from a committee of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, on the claims and faith of the church.

Printed at the True Latter Day Saints' Herald Steam Book Office, Plano, Illinois.

To their Excellencies, the President and Vice President, and the Honorable Senate and House of Representatives of United States, in Congress Assembled:

Having learned that counter influences are at work to prevent or thwart the action proposed by Congress to remedy evils existing in the territory of Utah, and knowing that a claim to be "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" has been made by a large portion of the inhabitants of Utah Territory, and by other religious bodies than that which your memorialists represent, by whom doctrines are held and practiced which are at variance with the proper usages of civilized nations, and opposed to the law of our common country; and that these doctrines are claimed by those who practice them to be made binding upon them, as Latter Day Saints, by the revelations governing said church we, your memorialists, would respectfully call your attention to the following statement of facts:

1. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints was organized on the sixth day of April, 1830, and was subsequently represented by its ministry and by the establishment of churches in many of the States, the Canadas, and Europe, under the ecclesiastical presidency of Joseph Smith, until June 27, 1844, when he and his brother Hyrum were killed at Carthage, Illinois.

2. At the time of the organizing of the church, and at all subsequent time prior to the dispersion of its members from Nauvoo, the church was simply an ecclesiastism; and, as such, could confer no privileges before the law not contained in the provisions of the law; nor authorize as a tenet that which was forbidden by the law of the State where the church might exist, or in contravention of the constitutional basis on which the church was built ── the word of God.

3. Under the presidency of Joseph Smith, the church became a corporate body, and adopted as a constitution or form of church government and discipline, the Scriptures, the Book of Mormon and Book of Doctrine and Covenants. The Bible and Book of Mormon have ever been the foundation on which the church has rested its faith, and there has been added to them the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, first published in the year 1835, and republished in 1845; the former edition during the presidential term of Joseph Smith, the latter edition under the regime of Brigham Young, as "President of the Twelve." This book, the "Book of Doctrine and Covenants," was, on the seventeenth day of August, 1835, presented to each and all the quorums of officers belonging to the church, separately, and acted upon by them; it was also presented to the Church in General assembly, and was adopted unanimously. It then became a part of the law of the church, and the church became bound by its provisions, equally as by those of the Bible and Book of Mormon. The doctrines and law of the church so established must ever remain the basis of its government; the endorsement of them an endorsement of the church, the departure from or denial of them a departure from or denial of the church.

4. We would respectfully urge our conviction that there can be no true Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints excepting that which is based on the law of the church, and that the observance of the law is not only the contradistinctive feature of the church, but of every individual member thereof. That we may not present an unsupported statement on so important a point, we most respectfully call attention to the following quotations from the Book of Covenants, which we submit as evidence:

Section 42, paragraph 5: "The Elders, Priests and Teachers of THIS CHURCH shall teach the principles of my gospel which are in the Bible and the Book of Mormon, in the which is the FULLNESS OF THE GOSPEL, and they shall observe the covenants and church articles to do them, and these shall be their teachings." (Old edition, section 13.)

Section 42, paragraph 21: "Every person who belongeth to this church of Christ shall observe to keep all the commandments and covenants of the church." (Old edition, section 13.)

5. Having, we trust, set forth sufficiently clearly the binding character of the church, state and national law upon whoever may claim to be "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints," your memorialists would beg permission to refer to the following items of church law found in the Bible, Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants, touching matters in which there is a direct antagonism between the church your memorialists represent and the church in Utah with which the government is at issue, and presenting the actual law on those points which are in disputation; ── and more especially upon the duties and privileges of the marriage relation:

BIBLE.

Malachi 2:14, 15: "Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the Lord hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy Youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously; yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant. And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the Spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth."

Matthew 19: 4‑6: "And he answered and said unto them Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

1 Corinthians 7 2: "Nevertheless, to avoid fornication let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband."

BOOK OF MORMON.

Jacob 2: 6: ."Wherefore, my brethren hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord; for there shall not any man among you have save it be ONE WIFE; and concubines he shall have none."

DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS.

Section 42, paragraph 7: "Thou shalt love thy wife with all thy heart, and shall cleave unto her and none else; and he that looketh upon a woman to lust after her, shall deny the faith." (Old edition, section 13.)

Section 49:3: "And again, I say unto you, that whoso forbiddeth to marry, is not ordained of God, for marriage is ordained of God unto man; wherefore it is lawful that he should have one wife, and they twain shall be one flesh." (Old edition, section 65.)

6. Again, and to conclude our direct evidence upon this point from the church law, we submit the following extract from the article on marriage, in which the minister officiating is required first to ascertain if there be any legal objections, and on becoming satisfied that there are none, the law thus instructs "He shall say, calling each by their names: 'You both mutually agree to be each other's companion, husband and wife, observing the legal rights belonging to this condition; that is, keeping yourselves WHOLLY FOR EACH OTHER AND FROM ALL OTHERS during your lives.' And when they have answered 'Yes,' he shall pronounce them 'husband and wife,' in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and by virtue of the laws of the country and authority vested in him."

7. The claim put forth by the advocates of polygamy that a subsequent revelation authorizes the practice of polygamy, is rendered invalid by the law of the church in Book of Covenants, section 27, paragraph 4, which reads: "Neither shall anything be appointed unto any of this church contrary to the church covenants, for all things must be done in order and by common consent in the church." (Old edition, section 51.)

8. That polygamy could not become a tenet of the church while the church existed in the several States of the Union, is plainly indicated by a clause of the law governing the church from an early day, which reads: "Let no man break the laws of the land for he that keepeth the laws of God hath no need to break the laws of the land." Book of Covenants, section 58, paragraph 5. (Old edition, section 18.)

9. In a careful examination of the publications of the gospel church from its earliest existence to the present time your memorialists have not found one single clause authorizing, justifying, or even permitting polygamy. The New Testament; the Book of Mormon; the Book of Covenants the standard works of the Latter Day Saints' Church; the periodicals of the church, embracing the Evening and Morning Star, the Messenger and Advocate, the Gospel Reflector, the Nauvoo Neighbor, the Times and Seasons, published in America; and the Millennial Star, published in England, are all silent on the question of polygamy, except wherein they refer to it historically, or to condemn either impliedly or directly its practice. The Scriptures are opposed to it, and the works published in the church of Latter Day Saints most unqualifiedly condemn it. Not even the body that now practices and teaches polygamy made any public profession of it till the year 1851, and not officially to the outside world before 1852.

10. Four months before the death of Joseph Smith, and seven months after polygamists date the receiving of a revelation which they assert came through him, authorizing polygamy, this same Joseph Smith published in the Times and Seasons a notice of the excommunication of a man for "preaching polygamy and other false and corrupt doctrines in the county of Lapeer, state of Michigan," in the following terse language: "This is to notify him and the church in general that he has been cut off from the church for HIS INIQUITY, and he is further notified to appear at the special conference on the 6th of April next to answer to these charges. ( Signed)

JOSEPH SMITH,

HYRUM SMITH,

Presidents of said Church.

This expulsion, we submit, could not have taken place had polygamy been made a church tenet seven months previously.

11. In addition to this, Mr. John Taylor, now one of the apostles of the polygamic doctrine, in a public discussion held in Boulogne, France, July 11, 1850, impliedly denied the doctrine of polygamy and. condemned it in the following language: "We are accused here of polygamy, and actions the most indelicate, obscene and disgusting, such than none but a corrupt and depraved heart could have contrived." (Taylor’s Discussion, p. 8.)

12. We, your memorialists, would therefore submit for the consideration of Congress in its action on the Utah question, and in its legislation on the question of the right of Congress to interfere with polygamy as being a part of the faith of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints:

1st. That the law of the church found in the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and the Book of Covenants, books accepted by the polygamists themselves, expressly forbids to one man more than one living wife.

2nd. That the law contained in those books is the constitution of the church; that no law can obtain in the church in contravention thereof, and that therefore the pretended revelation on polygamy is illegal and of no force.

3rd. That in the "Remonstrance" presented to Congress from the polygamists of Utah, dated March 31, 1870, the non‑publication of this pretended revelation till the year 1852 is admitted in the following language:

"Eighteen years ago, and ten years before the passage of the anti‑polygamy act of 1862, one of our leading men, Elder Orson Pratt, was expressly deputed and sent to Washington to publish and lecture on the principles of plural marriage as practiced by us ── For ten years before the passage of the act of 1862, the principle was widely preached throughout the Union and the world, and was universally known and recognized as the principle of our holy faith."

4th. That the plea of polygamy not being at variance with the law of the land because not expressly in violation of any law on the statute book of the territory of Utah, is not admissible, for this reason, the polygamic revelation claims to have been given in 1843, when the church as a body was in Illinois, in which State bigamy, or polygamy, was then, as now, a crime.

5th. That polygamy, being a crime against the law of the state of Illinois, could not have been authorized by revelation from Him whom polygamists themselves affirm gave the revelation found in Book of Covenants section 58, paragraph 5, which declares: "Let no man break the law of the land, for he that keepeth the laws of God hath no need to break the laws of the land; therefore be subject to the powers that be." (Old edition, section 18.)

6th. That the pretended revelation on polygamy was not published till 1852, is strong presumptive evidence that it was not in existence but even if it were, it would still be of no force in the church, as it contravenes revelations previously given to and accepted by the church, and is therefore precluded from becoming a church tenet by that clause of the church law before quoted, which declares, "Neither shall anything be appointed unto any of this church contrary to the church covenants."

13. It is known throughout the nation, and in many parts of the Old World, that there is an influential and rapidly growing organization of Latter Day Saints, separate and distinct from, and in this matter of polygamy, in church polity, and in the relations of the church to the Government entirely dissimilar and opposed to that which the Cullom Bill requires Congress to legislate upon.

14. This organization, known as the "Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints," is now being represented in conference at Plano, Illinois, by delegates and visitors from many of the eastern, southern and western States from the Pacific States, the Territories, including Utah, and Great Britain. Your memorialists are a committee appointed by this conference, and as such, would respectfully present to their Excellencies, the President and Vice President of the United States, and to each of the Honorable Members of the Senate and House of Representatives in Congress assembled our views on the questions herein set forth and accompany them with an abstract of the Faith of the true Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in relation to governments and laws in general as published in 1835 and in 1845, and affirmed by the Reorganized Church at as early a date as 1853 and again in 1864; which faith, as so affirmed, is based upon the Bible, Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants:

[Here was quoted in full section 112 of the Book of Doctrine and Covenants.]

15. We, your memorialists, regret that a necessity exists for the faith of the Reorganized Church being presented in contradistinction to that of other churches claiming the same name that we bear; but there is so manifest a tendency to confound the Reorganized Church with the polygamic factions, that we deem it but just that we be placed aright upon the record, theologically, socially and morally, as well as politically. We therefore respectfully submit the following:

[Here was inserted a copy of the "Epitome of faith and doctrine of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints."]

16. In some States of the Union the church has not been without representatives for the past forty years, or nearly, and in these churches neither the theory nor practice of polygamy has ever obtained. The body which your memorialists represent is mostly composed of churches and members scattered throughout the land from Maine to California and from Florida to Minnesota ── all subscribing to the constitution of the church ── all opposed to polygamy.

17. In view of the foregoing facts, we your memorialists, would urge the validity of the claim of the Reorganized Church to be the Church of Latter Day Saints, and in urging this claim, declare unqualifiedly the faith of the body your memorialists represent that, according to the law of the church given under the presidency of Joseph Smith, no body of people can be properly considered "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" but that body which recognizes the constitutional provisions of the law under which the church obtained an existence; and as loyalty to the Government and a monogamic institution of marriage are absolutely and imperatively demanded by the law of the church, as necessary to govern it in its political and social relations, we do most fully, freely and unreservedly affirm that there is nothing required by the law or polity of the church that can render its members violators of the laws of the land in any of their legal provisions.

18. We, your memorialists, would therefore petition that in the consideration of the questions of polygamy and disloyalty, as affecting a body calling themselves the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, in the territory of Utah, the crimes of polygamy and disloyalty may not be made to stain the mantle of the pure faith of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, by such official sanction and legislation of your honorable bodies as shall, in order to legalize the crimes of a few hundreds of polygamists in Utah (many of whom we trust will yet abandon their folly), enstamp with infamy and disloyalty the faith of many thousands throughout the United States, whose bold stand in the hour of the Nation's trials, whose integrity of purpose and life, whose loyalty is unquestioned, and whose faith is that of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. And for the peace, prosperity and perpetuity of the Government your memorialists will ever pray.

JOSEPH SMITH,

ALEX. H. SMITH,

MARK H. FORSCUTT,

WM. W. BLAIR,

JOSIAH ELLS

Committee on Memorial.

Presented and read before the Annual General Conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, held at Plano, Illinois, on the eleventh day of April, 1870, and adopted by said conference.

JOSEPH SMITH, President.

HENRY A. STEBBINS,

WM. H. GARRETT,

Clerks.

From "Differences That Persist Between the LDS and RLDS Churches" http://centerplace.org/library/books/DifferencesThatPersist.pdf Chapter 3

Reorganized Church representatives have vigorously maintained the following facts:

1. That no word from the pen of Joseph Smith favorable to polygamy is found in any authentic publication representing the church prior to his death.

2. That, to the contrary, the teachings of the Standard Books of the church all enjoin monogamy. These books include the Book of Mormon, translated by Joseph Smith; the Doctrine and Covenants, containing revelations given through him; and the Inspired Version of the Bible, as corrected by him. These he left to the church as its constitutional law, presumably representing his own mind and will as well as the mind and will of God. Furthermore, the official organ of the church, the Times and Seasons, shortly before his death, contained his signed denunciation of polygamy and notice of expulsion from the church of one who had advocated it (Times and Seasons, Volume 5, page 423, see also Volume 5, page 474; Volume 5, pages 490,491).

3. That his wife, Emma, of outstanding reputation for veracity, in her dying testimony denied that her husband ever had any other wife or ever sanctioned polygamy. She testified: "No such thing as polygamy, or spiritual wifery, was taught, publicly or privately, before my husband's death, that I have now, or ever had any knowledge of.... He had no other wife but me; nor did he to my knowledge ever have" (Church History, Volume 3, pages 355,356). Under the terms of the so-called revelation Joseph could not have taken another wife without Emma's knowledge.

4. That there is no public record of progeny born to Joseph Smith excepting by this on wife, Emma. Judge John F. Philips of the Circuit Court of the United States in his Temple Lot decision (1894) commented in that fact: "No such marriage ever occurred under the rules of the church, and no offspring came from the imputed illicit intercourse, although Joseph Smith was in the full vigor of young manhood and his wife, Emma, was giving birth to healthy children in regular order" (Decision of Judge Philips in the Temple Lot Case, pages 42,43; Federal Reporter, 60:937-959). During July, 1933, Inez Davis, then of the Church Historical Department, prepared a list of the direct posterity of Joseph and Emma Smith. At that time there were 159 living and 31 dead, making a total of 190 descendants born to Joseph Smith through the line of his one wife Emma Hale Smith, and to date no posterity ever in evidence is credited to him from any of the numerous alleged plural wives; 190 to 0 is a heavy score against a system allegedly set up to produce posterity.

5. That testimony of women who claimed they were his wives shows evidence of fraud and collusion and it does not "stand up in court." Two of them, thought to have clearer cases than others, actually did appear in person in the Temple Lot Suit and Judge Philips discredited their testimony in his decision (see Decision, pages 42,43).

6. That the motive for deception on the part of Brigham Young and his immediate associates is found in the fact that on the twenty-ninth day of August, 1852, when they first brought the alleged "revelation" to light they were deeply involved in polygamy and desired to claim the sanction of heaven for their marital ventures. No one of them was a prophet. Brigham Young never claimed to be the legal (rightful) prophetic successor to Joseph Smith (see page 42 of this tract). Unless he was this rightful successor he had no authority to present such a far-reaching revelation to the church. Consequently they invoked the name and the memory of Joseph Smith who was revered by the church as a prophet; and at one stroke secured the prestige of his and themselves came from under the onus of introducing the system which was destined to bring so much grief. On that day in 1852 when Brigham Young introduced the doctrine publicly he was, according to Utah biographers, the husband of twenty women. (See Pictures and Biographies of Brigham Young and His Wives, copyrighted 1896, and endorsed by the presidency of the Utah church.) This was in direct conflict with the constitutional law of the church. Something had to be done. Something was done.

---

Some of ths stuff in there may be helpful. --BenMcLean 21:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Ben, in reviewing the sources I noticed that they were prior to 1958, is that correct? I am not sure that this is the current stance of the RLDS/CofC church today. In discussions with some of their historians, I would say their stance has changed. Is the position you are outlining above current or more in keeping with those who broke off from the RLDS in the '80s? Storm Rider ^(talk) 03:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

We could state the earlier stand and the current stand, and make clear which is which. Val42 21:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that might be the best path to take. I do think it would be important that some recognition to the evolution of the CofC position be noted as well as the stronger position taken by those who broke off who reject any possiblity of Joseph and Emma's participation in polygamy. Storm Rider ^(talk) 23:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the current Community of Christ has abandoned this position. [1] However, Restoration Branches have not. (which is why the old position is covered at the CenterPlace.org library where I found this information.)

I agree that stating the earlier stand and the current stand of the Community of Christ and making clear which is which is the right thing to do, but it should also be made clear that the stand of the Restoration Branches has not changed - that they/we support the traditional RLDS view. --BenMcLean 16:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Uh, just because there have been informal (i.e. people continuing in branches without an ongoing relationahip with the formal church organization, such as the Restoration Branches) and formal (i.e. declaring new presidents, creating new corporations, etc.) break-offs from the RLDS/CoC doesn't mean that the church itself has abandoned 100 years of history re: the stance on Smith & polygamy. The fact of the matter is that there are now less sanctions (and thefeore more freedom) on individuals to express a so-called 'liberal' view, as opposed to the negativity heaped on those with a so-called 'conservative' or traditional view, therefore people - including the current historian, and former historian Rochard Howard - have openly speculated on Smith's (alleged) involvement with plural marriage. If you walk into the RLDS/CoC HQ (The Auditorium) and ask, official policy still states that a) the church has always believed the doctrine to be wrong, b) the church historically has taught that Smith wasn't the author of polygamy, and c) if evidence is found to be historically accurate (as some in the church believe) that Smith was involved with polygamy, that doesn't make it right - and this still is mostly the same as Joseph Smith III's own position. The state of affairs is that conservative/traditional/restorationist folks from a RLDS background would be more apt IN GENERAL to support MOST THINGS that were printed in previous times (older Saint's Herald articles, older books by RLDS leaders, older missionary teaching series such as 'Go Ye and Teach', etc.), this including material on the whole plural marriage issue, than they would the more liberal/ecumenical/idealist recent CoC stance/material. Likewise, current eager and liberal CoC members nowadays would be more apt to discount and disregard older writings. These fact, however, do not mean that the church itself has altered its view, especially since things have always been historically cloudy on this issue, certainly even in Joseph Smith III's day (1860-early 1900s). In conclusion, it isn't correct to say that writings from 1860 to the 1970s no longer have any validity for CoC members or the CoC church officially, and the church has totally abandoned its former positions on this matter. Many have retained their church memberships who still agree with the words of Elbert A. Smith and other former leading church members who had a more traditional RLDS perspective on Smith's role. With respect, A Sniper

If the newer writings disagree with the older writings, then the church has altered its view. That is all that the phrase "altered its view" can possibly mean. Q.E.D.

Nature of relationships

J. Smith was not perfect and he had many failures. We cannot prove beyond any doubt that he had more than one wife. Wait, we need to clear up our terms. Most people when they hear "husband" and "wife" they think of two people who have gone through a ceremony of some sort that "weds" them. That they spend their lives together in a close relationship, and that sexual relationship is typically part of this. Though some of these so called "wives" of Smith may have had sex with him, and others may have been "wed" to him how many fit the more classic definition of "wife," only one that we know of, Emma.

Some of the early plural "wives" listed are probably rather women who Smith had extra-marital affairs with and Latter-day Saints and other Latter Day Saints who embraced (or at one time embraced openly) polygamy have tried to sanitize by saying they were plural wives, and thus today Latter Day Saints who didn't embrace polygamy have just gone with the flow and called them plural wives for them plural wives and adultery are both bad, though they might feel a tad better that at least they thought they had a marriage bond so maybe it wasn't so bad...

Then there may be some who were "sealed" to smith in Nauvoo, but never wed, or thought of as wives for the present by him during his life. I think we need to really go through and decided: did they every have a wedding ceremony of some sort, or a sealing in Nauvoo temple when both were alive, if no, they were not husband and wife but if they had a sexual relationship together then, it was an affair.

If they had a wedding (though illegal) of this world then they were husband and wife, if they were just sealed in the temple and never had relations... then they were not husband and wife in the vernacular sense. —This unsigned comment was added by 4.242.9.56 (talk • contribs) .

I think it would be nice to have some sort of categorization. I know that the dataset is woefully incomplete, but at least a breakdown of who was sealed to him before and after he died should be obtainable. This set of names should be in a table, not a list, in order to accomodate the other columns of data, whatever they might be. What do you guys think? Ideas for column names? Wadsworth 18:25, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Disclaimer paragraph on "marriage" vs. "sealing"

The whole paragraph on "There is a subtle difference between 'sealing' ... and 'marriage'..." has the ring of original research. The Church's own familysearch.org website currently lists Joseph Smith with 24 "marriage(s)", several of which they've added fairly recently, although four of them have marriage dates after Joseph's death. I don't think there's any reasonable basis for disputing, even softly as this paragraph does, the fact of Joseph Smith being "married" to many wives, and citing Compton as the best authority for there being 33 well-documented wives. I came here after hearing complaints of pro-Mormon bias on this article from non-Wikipedian readers. I think they have a point. I think for one thing the "sealing" v. "marriage" paragraph should be erased. Thoughts? - Reaverdrop 15:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, you see, an atheist could argue that there is no reasonable basis for disputing the "fact" that Jesus was an ordinary man ("ordinary" meaning non-divine) Wikipedia however, has a policy, (NPOV) that says you can't put that in an article as long as it's disputed - and the same thing applies as long as there are groups (such as mine) that do not accept the popular (LDS) interpretation of history. Wikipedia must remain neutral as to whether Joseph Smith Jr. had any wives (that he knew of) besides Emma Hale Smith. --Nerd42 (talk) 18:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

When you compare Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, you see a large difference. Brigham had dozens of wives, each with their own family, and scores of children. He maintained multiple dwellings for this enormous family. In contrast, Joseph's wife was Emma. He only had one family, and one household, with only a couple of children. While it is interesting to note that he was sealed (married) to many other women, this did not really have much of an impact on his life. It is important to convey this information in this article, so that the reader will understand a little more about the man. The paragraph in question seems to do a reasonable job. If it is deleted, how shall we present the information? Wadsworth 18:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Response to User:Nerd42: Wikipedia doesn't say that Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior either. It describes what different people believe about him. However the Joseph Smith-polygamy issue is different, because the facts are a matter of historical record, and no knowledgeable historian I've ever heard of, from atheists to devout BYU professors and the LDS Church's own official historian and official genealogical record, disputes the fact that Joseph Smith had many simultaneous wives. The only room for informed study and debate is the nature of those marriages. Denying the certainty of a historical record that is acknowledged as accurate by all knowledgeable parties is not neutrality, and not even POV; it would be revisionist. NPOV only extends to avoiding what is subject to knowledgeable, informed dispute.

Okay, I just read that you are RLDS which makes this make more sense. But I still have never seen historically based evidence from any of several conflicting schools of thought that dispute the factual record of JS having been married many times. And the origin of that whole paragraph makes sense now - but the whole paragraph is basically RLDS beliefs presented as fact, despite contradicting the historical record. I'd be fine with prefacing the whole paragraph with something like "Some people such as the RLDS church believe that..." Other than that I'd like to see you produce scholarly historical references that can make a reasonable argument based on evidence that JS never actually married anyone besides Emma, before we describe the factual historicity of Joseph Smith’s polygamy as in dispute in the article.

And I sympathize with you - I think the LDS church and everyone involved would have been far better off if they'd rejected the idea of polygamy, whatever its source. I think Emma, Jason Briggs and Zenos Gurley were much wiser than Brigham Young and his pals (my forefathers among them included).

Response to Wadsworth:It could do a more reasonable job by describing something like what you just did - that JS never practiced polygamy openly, his home life revolved only around Emma, and it's doubtful that he ever had children with anyone but Emma. - Reaverdrop 18:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Reaverdrop, okay, sounds good. When I have a decent block time, I'll revise the paragraph accordingly. On a personal note, I just have to ask a question, based on your statement about it being wiser to have rejected polygamy, "whatever its source". Do you really think it's "wiser" for a person to follow his or her own counsel, rather than do what God’s prophet instructs? Should the wisdom of men preclude faith in God? Should the Israelites have ignored Moses and returned to Egypt, when faced with the Red Sea blocking their path?

Some people look back at history and make noises like, "Wow, that Zion's Camp sure was a bad idea. Look at what a rough time they had, how many died! Their prophet, Joseph Smith, must have been mistaken." Others look at things differently, and realize that death isn't a bad end if one is living righteously, and note that virtually all of the leadership of the early church was comprised of people who were strengthened and tempered by that grueling ordeal.

So, what are the results of Polygamy? Utah had something of a population boom, for one thing. That was undeniably useful. Lots of people left the church, too; one could argue that these were the weaker elements, those with less faith, so the herd was thinned, the stronger remained. There was the Utah war, lots of persecution, unpleasant media attention... Mormons became known for polygamy, some awkward moments today as we defend their obedience in the face of widespread cultural scorn. As for myself, I am proud of my my forefathers, and their great faith to do the will of God, whatever the cost. Wadsworth 19:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I do in fact personally believe it is wiser for a person to follow their own rational understanding based on tangible, objective evidence, than to obey instructions from someone claiming to be a prophet of God, and I prefer to rely on human reasoning rather than faith in divine beings. I strongly suspect anyone who felt the same would have rejected polygamy, Zion's Camp, the often-deadly trek out west, the Mountain Meadows Massacre, and the sanctification of racial exclusion. I don't doubt the ability of different brands of faith to make any degree of suffering and loss of loved ones seem a price worth paying for some kind of intangible rewards promised to the faithful, which to me seems like one more good reason why faith is a dubious virtue, better to be avoided than embraced. - Reaverdrop 18:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Response to User:Reaverdrop: I know it's long, but if you'd read my comments (which are the reason/explanation for the current Disputed tag on the article) you would have seen my position with regards to what Wikipedia should do, which has not changed:

1. That Wikipedia should list the "alleged" plural wives of Joseph Smith Jr.
2. That Wikipedia should not present Joseph Smith Jr's approval or disapproval of the doctrine or practice of plural marriage as an established historical fact.
3. That Wikipedia should fairly present the evidence of both positions without making a judgment.

My own personal position, is that Joseph Smith III was telling the truth, meaning Joseph Smith, Jr. was not only monogamous but a victim of an elaborate plot to make it appear otherwise by other people trying to use his name to justify their own actions. But I am not saying that Wikipedia should say that. Wikipedia should remain neutral in the controversy. You might say in the article that "most historians believe" something, but not that something is so unless it is not disputed. It is disputed. That is a fact. With a policy like NPOV, you can't make a judgment that this is unreasonable.

What the RLDS church historian said (if he actually said it) might not be representative of the members and branches of the church. If you look at Talk:Joseph Smith III, you'd see that I have removed the paragraph about the RLDS church historian because it is not sourced. --Nerd42 (talk) 16:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the misunderstanding as to that, I was referring to the LDS church historian - who of course tried to downplay the significance and magnitude of polygamy, but acknowledged that JS practiced it. As for how to present JS and polygamy, I would like to follow your change, and explain what evidence shows that JS practiced polygamy, and mention that it is disputed by the RLDS Church, but I still think there's a need for some kind of reference for historical evidence the RLDS rely on to make that dispute. - Reaverdrop 18:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Please read all my earlier comments on this page. I don't mean to be rude here, but I would be repeating myself if I were to answer. --Nerd42 (talk) 15:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see evidence that the current RLDS or Community of Christ does not recognize that Joseph Smith was a polygamist. Did I miss your reference elsewhere? I would also like to see statements for those sects that dispute that Joseph Smith was not a polygamist. The way to writing an excellent article and removing opportunity for conflict is to accurately reference statements with reputable sources. Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I just went to the Community of Christ site and found their response to the question, "What position does Community of Christ take on Joseph Smith Jr.’s alleged involvement in polygamy?" and their response[2].

Storm Rider -- I'm afraid your link doesn't work. Would you recheck and correct if possible? WBardwin 05:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC) -- Got through the third time. Strange? WBardwin 05:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand it. It worked for me, but I had a devil of time getting it to work the first time. I don't know what else to do to ensure it works at all times. Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I could see it. --Nerd42 (talk) 18:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

"I would like to see evidence that the current RLDS or Community of Christ does not recognize that Joseph Smith was a polygamist." I would like to refer you first to my comment on this page from May 12 regarding the RLDS church historian's position and secondly to the Restoration Branches Wikipedia article I wrote - which touches on the details of the split between the Community of Christ and the Restoration Branches. It is indisputable that the RLDS church has traditionally defended Joseph Smith Jr. (The Community of Christ acknowledges this) against the accusations of polygamy. The Community of Christ however, in the opinion of the Restoration Branches, (and I can say this with some certainty) has not held to the traditional teachings of the RLDS church, hence the schism. --Nerd42 (talk) 17:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Started corrections

I by no means think my recent edits to this page amount to a stable version of the article, but I think I have at least got the wheels turning on fixing some of the problems brought up here. I started by copying some text from [[Joseph Smith Jr.]] which makes a much better introduction to the article in my opinion, especially considering the new name. --Nerd42 (talk) 17:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Although I rather like the change in introduction, there are a few things in the original we might want save and place in the rest of the article. However, the new conclusion to the article (moved to this page and placed below) is probably POV, and would be better discussed in a section for alternative views. A vast conspiracy?? Very unlikely, at least in my opinion. Do you have a source from your group's history, asserting or claiming this conspiracy that you could quote in an alternative section? WBardwin 05:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

This would imply that a vast conspiracy took place within the LDS church to justify their controversial polygamous practices by linking them with Smith's name and reputation.

My initial thought was to just leave that out of the article after you brought it up. But, though Richard Price doesn't speak for the Restoration Branches by any means, he apparently believes this. [3] He says:

The truth is that Joseph Smith was “framed”— that is, the doctrine of polygamy which found its way into the Church came in through the Cochranites. It also came through three different groups of men who falsely claimed that Joseph was its author in order to justify their own evil activities. The Prophet Israel A. Smith understood this “framing” of his grandfather and wrote, “Joseph Smith was the greatest victim of fraud and conspiracy of the last 500 years. Nothing like it in recorded history. He was simply lied about when something had to be done to justify the filth and rottenness of Utah Mormon Polygamy” (letter to Mrs. Richard Price, September 17, 1956).

This is from the same page the article already links(ed) to. --Nerd42 (talk) 17:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I personally find the controversy far more interesting than the list of wives, so I was glad to read about how this page became what it is. I've tried to clear up some sentence structure, mostly wordiness, but the bulk of the section which attmpts to present evidence of the minority opinion is quotations from historians. I think that the strongest evidence are Joseph's own statements. Cite the histoirans, but quote the historical figures.--ErinHowarth 06:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The whole thing needs some cleanup. First of all, there were no references for the numbers of members of groups, so I removed them. Second, the paragraphs are too long, and need to be broken up more for readability. Third, we need to keep one opinion in one section and another opinion in another section. Sentences are starting to argue with each other and contradict the ones before or after them. --BenMcLean 18:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Details regarding the plural wives

The list of wives should include details such as the evidence of the wedding, the age of the bride at the time of the marriage, her marital status, and any children born to her before Joseph died. For comparison sake, this list might also include Emma and their several children together. There is some very exciting research being done using DNA evidence to confirm or eliminate these children as possible descendants of Joseph Smith, so far, three boys have been eliminated, none have been confirmed.--ErinHowarth 06:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the Nerd42 Doctrine

1. That Wikipedia should list the "alleged" plural wives of Joseph Smith Jr.
2. That Wikipedia should not present Joseph Smith Jr's approval or disapproval of the doctrine or practice of plural marriage as an established historical fact.
3. That Wikipedia should fairly present the evidence of both positions without making a judgment.

---

And I am going to try to help with covering the contraversy fairly. I think there might be some new developments in this area in the next few years. --BenMcLean 19:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Several of your edits today have removed references and, IMHO, have made the article inferior. The evidence of Joseph Smith's marriages/sealings is there for all to review. It is not only the LDS church who states the marriages existed, but every historian that has reviewed the documents.

Instead of deleting material, such as the number of Latter Day Saints that do not believe Joseph practised polygamy, why don't we just add references? It should not be difficult to do.

I realize that we need to be cognizant that this is an issue of faith for some individuals and so care should be taken in wording. However, the evidence of these sealings and/or marriages should be stated clearly and without reserve. Is that acceptable? It sounds that this is in keeping with your statement above.

I would prefer that you revert your edits today and bring your proposals to this page prior to any edits being made. We then can edit out of agreement rather than conflict. Is that acceptable? Cheers. Storm Rider ^(talk) 19:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think reverting the edits I made would help anything, though I do recognize that the article is greatly in need of improvement. If I removed references, then that had to have been a mistake. No references were given for the number of latter day saints in each group, and I fail to see the relevancy of how many members there are in the Community of Christ to whether or not Joseph Smith Jr. was a bigamist. --BenMcLean 19:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Your edits cast a significant doubt on Joseph Smith's knowing participation in plural marriage. Further, your edits attempt to make it sound that only historians of the LDS church support such ideas. Joseph Smith's teachings on plural marriage are well documented. His concious, knowing particpation in plural marriages, with Emma's knowledge and occaisionally support at times, is also well documented and supported by the vast majority of historians both inside and outside of the LDS Church and the Community of Christ. Your position is that of a very small minority of Saints, namely the Restoration Branches.

I understand that this is an issue of faith for members of the RBs, but it is disingenuous to portray the issue as if it is strongly in doubt or disputed by a significant minority. It is not. I know of no significant historian of the Latter Day Saint movement that holds an opinion other than Joseph Smith participated in plural marriage during his lifetime. One may argue or dispute that the marriages were never consumated or that Joseph did not live as man and wife with any of these marriages, but to say they did not exist is not defensible except as a position of faith. If you choose not to revert I undertand, but it will need to be reverted because it is not realistic. Storm Rider ^(talk) 21:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

History is not a science of consensus but of sources. It is not required that many people hold a minority opinion for that opinion to be significant. I think that this discussion has made it clear that whether or not Joseph Smith, Jr. taught or practiced polygamy is a matter of one's point of view. Resonable people can review the evidence and reach seperate conclusions; therefore, this article should present the evidence and refrain from drawing conclusions.--ErinHowarth 22:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with User:ErinHowarth --BenMcLean 18:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

"Cleanup" coming along nicely so far

There are a couple more things that I think need to be fixed:

1. Some sentences still seem to be contradicting each other - the wording in the article needs to remain neutral on the issue(s) but when one side of the argument is making a point, another section should be started for the other side instead of adding "buts" to the sentence.
2. The material in the summary on Joseph Smith Jr. needs to be shortened - and merged better with this article.
3. Sources might be divided into "for" and "against" sections - it could get really messy when we get contradictory sources. --BenMcLean 18:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Question: Why are we quoting Richard Price? He is hardly a competent historian by practically anyone's standards. His work is never peer-reviewed; if he would submit his research for such review, it would never stand up. If you quote him, you should at least tell people he is an amateur historian, an excommunicated RLDS publicist, or something of the like. Evangelical historian Mark Noll once famously wrote that the scandal of the evangelical mind was that there was not much there. He wanted his fellow evangelicals to understand that they are not taken seriously because their work often does not measure up to any professional standards. Getting mad about something does not mean you have a coherent argument. Similarly, if Price or Restoration Branch folks that hold his views ever want to be taken seriously, they will have to do better homework and be willing to revise positions if they are wrong.

I disagree that the clean up is going well. I think this whole article is a disaster. It started out as a list of the plural wives of Joseph Smith, an interesting historical footnote that is reprinted in many books and other sources. Discussion revealed that historical evidence for this list is far from conclusive. But, now the entire focus of the article is on this discussion. The argument seems to have dissolved into a standoff between statements made by Joseph during his lifetime against the principle and statements made by Joseph’s associates after his death in support of the principle. This is very boring. I suggest that the structure of the article return to a list, but that each entry in the list must be justified and defended. That is, evidence or a rational must be given for each entry as well as the rational against inclusion. -ErinHowarth 17:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Boredom has nothing to do with neutrality in a contraversy. Nothing's wrong with having a list - but "None" or "None of the Above" (except Emma Hale Smith, of course) would have to be one of the items. --75.40.14.108 20:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with ErinHowarth. I didn't see the original article but I can see how this originally started as claims made to support Joseph Smith and Polygamy and then turned into a "he said/she said" war of sources. Most of the information on this paged is unsourced. I believe if this doesn't get cleaned up soon that this page should altogether be changed. I really believe this page needs major clean up because of the lack of sourced material. In fact I believe that if sources aren't found reasonbly soon that statements that are unsourced should be removed until proper sourcing can be found. This is a serious issue of WP:A - JRN 15:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Clearing up a few issues

I would like to clear up the belief that Joseph Smith was a polygamist. He wasn't! He was NOT sealed to thrity-something women, he was merely sealing them to their own husbands, in the LDS Temple. To people who do not take the time to fully understand what happens in there, this might seem like polygamy, however, Joseph Smith was only marrying them to their husbands, not to himself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ophilius Grey203.97.94.110 (talk) 01:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

Thanks for your comment. I believe we have now avoided any innuendo, and we have clearly given the points of view on the matter in the intro. I hope it is at least passing. Agape bright 22:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Cite vs. Dump: Original Source Material

User Écrasez l'infâme is dropping in a large amount of original source material and calling it a "citation". A citation is a reference to an original source; dropping original source material in an article is just that — dropping in original source material. The inclusion of a long quotation from the Doctrine & Covenants in the footnotes is clearing unnecessary in this case. Any help on this? --TrustTruth 17:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

A citation can also include a quotation of the work if it is relevant. See The Chicago Manual of Style. The quote in this case, Smith's 1847 polygamy relevation from D&C, is highly relevant in the article:

Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines—
Behold, and lo, I am the Lord thy God, and will answer thee as touching this matter.
Therefore, prepare thy heart to receive and obey the instructions which I am about to give unto you; for all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same.
For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory. …
if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood …
Then shall they be gods, because they have no end …
to know the only wise and true God, and Jesus Christ, whom he hath sent. I am he. Receive ye, therefore, my law. …
God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law; and from Hagar sprang many people. This, therefore, was fulfilling, among other things, the promises. …
Was Abraham, therefore, under condemnation? Verily I say unto you, Nay; for I, the Lord, commanded it. …
Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, because they were given unto him, and he abode in my law; as Isaac also and Jacob did none other things than that which they were commanded; and because they did none other things than that which they were commanded, they have entered into their exaltation, according to the promises, and sit upon thrones, and are not angels but are gods.
David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me. …
David's wives and concubines were given unto him of me …
And let mine handmaid, Emma Smith, receive all those that have been given unto my servant Joseph …
Let no one, therefore, set on my servant Joseph; for I will justify him …
as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.
And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified.

Calling this highly relevant quotation a "dump" appears to be an attempt to whitewash the historical record and withold this relevant quotation from the article. Écrasez l'infâme 11:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

If the "dump" word is offensive, I will replace it with "drop". Please assume good faith. I have made it clear that the issue is with keeping the article to a reasonable size. Try distilling the quote into salient points that you then back up with a citation. Whatever zingers you feel this quote contains could even be communicated more effectively that way (as opposed to dropping in a chunk of original source material in the footnotes that people are less likely to read). If your aim is to get points across, go ahead and make the points in the article. This quote is simply too big to include, IMHO. --TrustTruth 20:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the quote is needless--not to mention the date is dead wrong. The plural marriage revelation is 1843, not 1847 (Smith had been dead for three years by 1847). In addition, the wording of "Jesus Christ" giving the revelation is just over the top. If you want to have a hearing in a public forum, you've got to be willing to use somewhat neutral language. If you want your own viewpoint out there, start your own web site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.190.249.171 (talk • contribs) 14:07, 23 July 2007

I would suggest linking to the quote or summarizing the quote. You may want to review how to use quotations properly on Wikipedia. Be careful of having an axe to grind; when doing so it is very difficult to produce productive edits. There is a need for balance in all articles; read the article in its entirety to determine if something is missing; if so, then it should be added. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 19:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Merging wives

Many of the articles for his wives have been tagged for over 7 months. Most of the articles for the wives are extremely stubby. After thinking about it for a while I really don't see how most of them will ever grow beyond one or two sentences because the only reason why they're notable is because they were married to Joseph Smith, Jr. They should either be merged into the table or the table should be split off into a new article which can expand on these wives so there won't be 30+ articles on the subject. If they ever were to grow larger they could always be broken off again. Thoughts? I may come up with something in the coming weeks but I wanted to announce my ideas. Radagast83 05:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I like the suggestion; it seems like a much better way of organizing the article and would also help readers who are looking for this information to more easily find it. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 08:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

There are many artcles that would otherwise be stubs that are combined into one article. I think that this is a good way to organize such information. — Val42 16:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I would generally agree with merging or combining the stub articles. Let us know what ideas you come up with! WBardwin 20:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I eventually settled on just merging in relevant information into the "notes" section of the article. I've left articles that were longer than just a sentence or two as they are for the time being. If any of these people are notable enough and if the content added eventually becomes to big I'm sure they could be spun off at a later date. Radagast83 22:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Fundamentalist RLDS

Given the usage of the term Fundamentalist in Mormon fundamentalism, would another term be better? Do these new offshoots use a term among themselves? With recent media attention on polygamy, it would be easy for some to conclude that these new offshoots have a common base with the Latter-day Saint schisms. Suggestions? WBardwin 18:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, these groups often use the term "fundamentalist" to self-describe themselves. I agree with your point, however; this really could be confusing to those who only know of polygamous FLDS as "fundamentalists." Often, these former RLDS groups call themselves "Restorationists" and may call themselves RLDS (even though they do not meet in a CofC congregation and see it as an apostate church). To be quite honest, the name game is an extremely problematic feature of fundamentalist RLDS--leading to internal disagreements and schisms in some cases. (posted 11:49 . . . . 208.100.216.138 31 July 2007)

"To be quite honest, the name game is an extremely problematic feature of fundamentalist RLDS--leading to internal disagreements and schisms in some cases." - Definitely. This is a huge problem and everybody involved knows it. --BenMcLean (talk) 15:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Emma Smith a leader in RLDS Church?

In the section titled 'List of possible wives" it lists Emma and says "Later became a leader for the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (now the Community of Christ)". I haven't been able to find anything that verifies that she was ever a leader in the early RLDS Church and the histories I've read, from LDS and CofC sources, left it at her merely being one of the main influences on Joseph Smith III's decision to finally accept the presidency in 1860. If anyone has evidence to the contrary, please attach a citation to that, plus I'd really like to learn more about it! Thanks --JonRidinger (talk) 05:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Look at Roger Launius's biography, Joseph Smith III: Pragmatic Prophet (University of Illinois Press, 1988). Emma was an RLDS member and was appointed to gather hymns for the first RLDS hymnal--though there is no evidence she did so (to my knowledge). While Emma was not an ordained leader in the RLDS church, she certainly advised Joseph Smith III often in the early years of presidency. See Launius, passim, for this. Thanks, David Howlett david-howlett@uiowa.edu —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.100.216.163 (talk) 02:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

OK thanks! I appreciate your response, but still think it's a bit misleading to state she was a "leader" in the early RLDS Church because it implies more than simply advising JS III. It seems to imply she actually held a formal position, which there is no evidence of. She was definitely a formal leader in the pre-martyrdom church as first president of the Relief Society, but maybe something like "advisor" or "played important role in establishing the Reorganization" or something of the like would be better for this article. She was definitely influential to JS III and the early Reorganization. Thoughts? Suggestions? Thanks --JonRidinger (talk) 03:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Being bold I changed the term "leader" to "member". I have read of JS III's statement his mother was a member, but it seems like I have also read that she was rebaptized, but my memory is sketchy. Does anyone have a reference for rebaptism or is my memory in error? There is a significant difference between adivising her son or being asked to gather the hymns (which she had done for the church during Joseph's time) and being a leader of a church. I cannot help but think that Emma was revered simply because she was the wife of the Joseph Smith, but being called a leader is stretching her role. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 14:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for being bold! I guess I should've done that to begin with, but wanted to see if anyone had some evidence I was not aware of. Oh well. Member is a good replacement, IMO. I have heard conflicting reports on whether or not Emma was rebaptized in the early RLDS Church. In the very least she was an active part of the Reorganization. --JonRidinger (talk) 23:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Emma was never rebaptized. This was a big RLDS polemical point for a long time (at least until the 1970s)--the idea being that LDS who followed Brigham were re-baptized at various times, while RLDS never were. Therefore, RLDS were somehow more legitimate while LDS had thrown away their first covenant. In truth, this misunderstood the Nauvoo practice of rebaptism for repentance, health, reaffirmation of faith, etc. It simply read back into the past contemporary practices (something that contemporary LDS often do, also). However, Emma and Joseph Smith III were never rebaptized into the RLDS church. They were accepted on their original baptism.

Yes, I agree that saying that Emma was a "member" is better than a "leader." Brigham Young certainly thought that she was behind the RLDS movement, but in truth, she did not have that much to do with its founding or perpetuation. Her presence gave the movement legitimacy, and she helped advise her son on several key decisions, but she mostly lived an ordinary life in Nauvoo, taking care of boarders at the remodeled Nauvoo House. David Howlett david-howlett@uiowa.edu —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.255.242.247 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I would definitely describe Emma as a leader. The Restoration Branches don't believe that women can be ordained to priesthood offices, but it would not make sense for a Latter Day Saint to argue that women cannot be ordained at all. This would clearly contradict essential early church doctrines and practices. --BenMcLean (talk) 15:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Of which early church are you speaking? I am not aware of a single woman being ordained to the priesthood during the time of Joseph Smith. That is not to say that women did not lay their hands to heal people, which there are many examples. This practice eventually ceased almost entirely if not completely. The teaching was that they were using their husbands priesthood or the power of their faith in Jesus Christ.

How would you describe her as a leader? Is it different from being the wife of the prophet? Did she have a title or office? -^StormRider 16:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Issues with section on 1831 revelation

The section dealing with the Phelps document on the 1831 revelation is unbalanced, POV, and improperly uses sources. Please see the extensive discussion at Talk:1831_polygamy_revelation. --MrWhipple (talk) 21:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result of the proposal was Merge with some reservations and one dissenting opinion. I will perform the merge in a couple of hours when I get home, unless someone wants to start sooner. --Descartes1979 (talk) 23:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

---

Pursuant to the proposal and discussion already made at 1831 polygamy revelation, I am formalizing the proposal here. I propose that 1831 polygamy revelation and 1843 polygamy revelation be merged into this article.

• Merge - At first glance there is a fair amount that is duplicated, and there is no need for separate articles. The combined articles would not be that long, and it would be good to have it all in one place. I will take a closer look tonight though. --Descartes1979 (talk) 00:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• Merge. I support Descartes1979's proposal to merge the two revelation articles into this one - however, as has been pointed out within the last couple of days by MrWhipple, the two pages are riddled with POV and are in need of a lot of editing. Certainly the articles as they stand shouldn't be taken wholesale and thrown in, which I doubt any regular editors would want anyway. Best, A Sniper (talk) 00:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
• Merge - Essentially this is a single topic; breaking them up at this point undermines this article and forces a repetition in two additional articles that is unnecessary. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 01:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
• Do not merge merge. The article 1831 polygamy revelation, like the 1890 Manifesto article, are certainly related to the subject of this article, but are both stand-alone articles in their own right. As independent articles, they are able to present important facts and details that would not be important or relevant in this article, as shown by a quick glance at the reliables sources referenced in the 1831 article. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 12:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I respectfully disagree, we can keep all of the references in the new article, and the 1890 Manifesto has a little bit more historical significance I think since it was so well known. However, I might be persuaded to have it, and other such articles merged into a larger Mormonism and polygamy article - but that is a discussion for another day. Unless you have a better reason for your opposition, it seems there is a large majority that favor the merge. Please remember I am not proposing that the merge eliminate any of the details from any of the articles, and I think they are mostly all pertinent. We can haggle all we want about the content later, but it will all get rewritten anyway if the edits continue prior to a merge. --Descartes1979 (talk) 20:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    • We do already have a larger article on this topic, called Plural marriage, of which this article is a sub-article. COGDEN 20:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I now support a merger and will work (and ask others) to work to ensure that that we can achieve compromise on a merged article. I also request that the following reservations are addressed:

• That the merge not be used as pretext to ensure that historical details about the 1831 polygamy revelation and 1843 polygamy revelation not be buried or deleted. These include but are not limited to:

• Statements by Hyrum Smith repudiating the 1843 polygamy revelation
• The scholarly question of the provenance of the 1831 polygamy revelation
• Relevant passages of these revelations (which would best appear in a footnote in the merged article)

• That the larger article size approaching or exceding 100 KB be recognized, and not be used as a pretext to delete relevant verifiable facts from the article.

Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 21:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• Merge. The material is better suited here 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 the 1831 article, which, by its very title, claims that there was an 1831 revelation, when that is highly debatable. (3) It would reduced the POV nature of the 1843 article, which focuses almost entirely on the lurid elements of D&C 132. (4) It would also allow us to reduce the speculation-as-fact in the other articles.--MrWhipple (talk) 16:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
• Merge. This are all threads of the same cloth. Occams Razor: "Do not needlessly multiply entities." (Taivo (talk) 17:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC))
• Merge. Too much duplication between the two articles - we already have too many LDS articles on Wikipedia as it is. Creating sub-articles such as 1831 polygamy revelation ends up becoming a way to expand chapters from the Tanners' "Changing World of Mormonism" (in this case Chapter 9, which you can read here:[4]) into Wikipedia. Put in references to the book and let people go read it if you want, but why do we need to recreate the book piece by piece in the wiki? Bochica (talk) 19:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose merge (but will not stand in the way). Articles about the 1831 and 1843 revelations (if properly written) can stand on their own, and this article is already quite large, yet hasn't even scratched the surface of the topic. If we were to merge, in the near future the material now in the sub-articles would likely have to be split-out again as more material is incorporated and the articles are cleaned up and made better and larger. That means wasted effort that could be spent improving this article and the sub-articles. Let's just do a WP:Summary style article here and have two good, focused sub-articles. We should remove any more general material from the sub-articles, making each of them focused and specific as to the respective revelations. COGDEN 20:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Are we reading the same article? If you take out the table of wives, this article isn't very big at all...--Descartes1979 (talk) 20:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Not huge, but it would be huge if everything from the sub articles is merged. If, however, this merger proposal is really about deleting content from the sub-articles, then that's what we should be talking about. Merger is not a substitute for dealing directly with NPOV and style problems. COGDEN 20:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The problem with this is that the two other articles limit the discussion to (1) a supposed 1831 revelation for which there is only one, 30-years-later document and (2) D&C 132. There are other items that don't fit into those two categories, so we really need a place where an uncertain chain can be documented. Perhaps a "Development of Mormon polygamy" article.--MrWhipple (talk) 20:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Renaming the 1831 article to Development of Mormon polygamy and a discussion of all 1830s-era polygamy is not a bad idea, though the 1843 revelation clearly deserves its own article, considering how much has been written on it. COGDEN 20:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - I am not opposed to having sub articles, but only when the article demands to be broken down. IMO, now is not that time. Currently there is too much repetition and an obvious desire by some editors to continue to add to repetition in order to add understanding to the subarticle. We may yet in the future make subarticles, but what they will be has yet to answered. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 20:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Before merging, then, we should weed out all the repetitive material and see what we have left. If what we have left is only a stub article, then that's actually a good thing, because stub designation stimulates people to add content. COGDEN 20:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Just to make clear, now that Écrasez l'infâme has retracted, that while I oppose the move, and think it is a tremendous waste of time that could better be spent improving these quite dreadful articles, I'm not going to stand in anybody's way if they want to temporary merge them. Moving slop around doesn't make it any less slop. COGDEN 21:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I agree that the three articles are currently "slop", but combining them will allow multiple editors to build a good, single article based on a consensus view. Right now, our efforts are fragmented, and each article is built around the two or three editors working on it.--MrWhipple (talk) 21:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Would you mind providing some more advice to avoid the pitfalls you mention? The comment about leaving stubs appears to be a good one, and I suggest that we follow it. Anything more? Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 22:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

This was simply not necessary - a compromise wording could have been figured out. I can only speak for my own concern: that this is presented as Compton's theory, and not consensus (or provable fact). The best historians can say today is that there were women who claimed to have been married to JSJr., some many years after the fact, and that at least two were called perjurers in a US court. Find the appropriate word: 'perhaps', 'possibly', 'maybe', etc., but to quote Compton and then present it as fact, well, THAT'S POV right there. Best, A Sniper (talk) 22:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

No compromise was offered, instead you reverted. The current page misrepresents Compton as saying these were "possible wives". He doesn't. He says they were wives. You can't cite him as a source and then say something different than what he said. That's intellectually dishonest and has no place in an encyclopedia. - Juden (talk) 22:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Table of wives

This table has been an empty shell for as long as I can remember (at least a year I think) - but is a great addition to the article. Does anyone have No Man Knows My History or the other sources so we can get the table filled out? --Descartes1979 (talk) 06:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way, the names of the wives are all over the place and hard to match up, since some married several times, and are listed by their maiden or married names - really confusing. What is the best and standard way to give their names? I think we should list them by their maiden names, with married names in parenthesis such as: Emma Hale (Smith) - this gets complicated for some that were married several times after Smith, but I think that may be the best way to do it unless someone else has a better idea. --Descartes1979 (talk) 07:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Whoa

Before I start editing your work, Descartes1979 could you please make it clear that JSJr. did NOT claim to have received a revelation in 1843 - Brigham Young announced to the public in 1852 that JSJr. had received a revelation in 1843. Regardless of whether or not it happened, as an encyclopedia these details are extremely important. Young could not produce the original and it was claimed that Emma Smith had burned it, which she denied. If it is stated that some historians believe JSJr. received a revelation on the matter in 1831, the same must be said of 1843. Best, A Sniper (talk) 16:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

This 1831 date gets thrown around a lot. As I was reading vol. 5 of the History of the Church it also mentions 1831, but not as a revelation. It discusses Smith's translation of the Old Testament during 1831 and his questioning of how the prophets of the OT were allowed to do so. This is repeated by several historians, but does not refer to a revelation. It is possible to confuse a reference to 1831 and think that it is discussing the purported revelation that the Tanners have called a polygamy revelation, which would be a mistake. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 16:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Storm Rider - this is what I had gathered from my reading of church history - questions posed from OT translation and not a revelation. You know my editing angle is always to try and get the official church stance recorded, without being POV. All the best, A Sniper (talk) 17:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

This really is a confusing topic. My edit was not for you personally, but more a comment to everyone. I have seen references being misused to support a specific position when in fact the reference did not do so. This issue of 1831 and the alleged revelation on polygamy of 1831 seems to be misused by individuals on both sides of the issue (which is interesting in an of itself). What is absolutely clear, is the "revelation" was only addressing missionary work according to Ezra Booth, no friend of the church and made five months after the supposed statement by Joseph. When most historians are discussing 1831, Joseph, and polygamy, they are referring to the translation of the OT and Joseph's questions about plural marriage and OT prophets. Thank you for your work; we need skilled editors capable of discussing issues from both sides. Sorry to bump into your question to Descartes. Cheers.

Right now I am just trying to organize information in preparation for a possible move - feel free to correct any of the edits if they are worded badly. A little later on the line, I will try to contribute content and references. --Descartes1979 (talk) 19:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Both Joseph and his brother Hyrum Smith, days before Joseph's murder by a mob, spoke about the content and meaning of the 1843 polygamy revelation at the Nauvoo city council meeting of 1844-06-08. See:

• 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.

My attempt to write about this history is at the article 1843 polygamy revelation:

Both Joseph and his brother Hyrum Smith, days before Joseph's murder by a mob, spoke about the content and meaning of the 1843 polygamy revelation at the Nauvoo city council meeting of 1844-06-08. The purpose of this meeting was to address accusations of Mormon licentiousness inter alia made in the Nauvoo Expositor. The published minutes state that Hyrum

“ referred to the revelation read to the High Council of the Church, which has caused so much talk about multiplicity of wives; that said Revelation was in answer to a question concerning things which transpired in former days, and had no reference to the present time ”

(original emphasis). Following Hyrum, Joseph Smith said

“ they make a criminality for a man to have a wife on earth while while he has one in heaven ”

and that "the revelation was given in view of eternity":

“ he received for answer, men in this life must marry in view of eternity, otherwise they must remain as angels, or be single in heaven, which was the amount of the revelation referred to[.] ”

According the historian H. Michael Marquardt, "this was an attempt by Smith to obscure the real intent of the revelatory message," and W. E. La Rue emphasizes the contradiction between the two brother' statements. J. L. Clark writes that Hyrum's statement "appeared in the Nauvoo Neighbor of June 19, 1844, but was omitted from the History of the Church."

(see article for appropriate citations).

Like many other historical details in the articles 1831 polygamy revelation and 1843 polygamy revelation, much of this detail is logically independent from this article on Joseph Smith, Jr. and polygamy. These important details would be lost or irrelevant here. This is one reason why merging these independent articles is unwise. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 20:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The very way this is presented smells of POV. There is absolutely no proof whatsoever that either Smith brother advocated polygamy shortly before their deaths. It might very well be true, but where is the actual referenced evidence? No offence to LDS historians, but opinions are one thing and evidence another. You have matter of factly supposed that D&C132 was received in 1843 without concern that it appears nowhere in the historical record until Utah. Even if absolutely true, as en encyclopedia we must stick to the written evidence which suggests one of two theories: 1) Smith was not the author of the doctrine and it was attributed to him posthumously, or 2) Smith said one thing in public, officially, and another in private. But simply writing as if D&C132 was, without doubt, something that existed in 1843 is simply POV, at least for an encyclopedia. Best, A Sniper (talk) 21:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's not forget the plural marriage page. This is another duplication of info on other pages, not to mention that the focus is on JSJr., and therefore perhaps could be merged with the JSJr. & poygamy page. Thoughts? Best, A Sniper (talk) 22:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

POV tag

The article currently falsely depicts Compton's list of wives as a list of "possible" wives. That's not what Compton says, and so the article misrepresents him. Worse, it does so intentionally, as the falsehood was reinserted after being pointed out. Hmm. I suppose it also needs an accuracy tag. - Juden (talk) 22:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Juden placed a POV tag on the article when his edits were reverted regarding an edit about calling the possible wives by Joseph Smith "possible", inferring that there is disagreement over the wives listed. My reversion of his edit before his unfortunate response, was due to the fact that the actual number of Smith's wives is disputed. I have never seen any conn census by any group of reputable historians that the exact number and identity of each wife is or has been accepted as fact. Juden, did I miss something or did you recently find an article that removed all doubt so that all historians have now seen your position as the absolute, god-given truth of this matter. I had to have missed that memo. Please shed light on this issue. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 22:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, I did not see where Comption has now been recognized as the end all for all historians; did that memo go out? I keep missing these things. Please explain where one historian is viewed as FACT and everyone else becomes...dog meat. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 22:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Read the sentence you reverted: it states that Compton lists these women as "possible" wives. He doesn't, he lists them as wives. You have no right to misrepresent his viewpoint. It's intellectually dishonest and has no place in a reputable encyclopedia. -

This was simply not necessary - a compromise wording could have been figured out. I can only speak for my own concern: that this is presented as Compton's theory, and not consensus (or provable fact). The best historians can say today is that there were women who claimed to have been married to JSJr., some many years after the fact, and that at least two were called perjurers in a US court. Find the appropriate word: 'perhaps', 'possibly', 'maybe', etc., but to quote Compton and then present it as fact, well, THAT'S POV right there. Best, A Sniper (talk) 22:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

No compromise was offered, instead you reverted. The current page misrepresents Compton as saying these were "possible wives". He doesn't. He says they were wives. You can't cite him as a source and then say something different than what he said. That's intellectually dishonest and has no place in an encyclopedia. - Juden (talk) 22:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

This was simply not necessary - a compromise wording could have been figured out. I can only speak for my own concern: that this is presented as Compton's theory, and not consensus (or provable fact). The best historians can say today is that there were women who claimed to have been married to JSJr., some many years after the fact, and that at least two were called perjurers in a US court. Find the appropriate word: 'perhaps', 'possibly', 'maybe', etc., but to quote Compton and then present it as fact, well, THAT'S POV right there. Best, A Sniper (talk) 22:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

You didn't offer a compromise: you reverted. It's plain fact that Compton lists these women as wives, not possible wives. - Juden (talk) 22:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

With cooperative editors this is as simple as 1,2,3 to work out. However, with contentious editors the going is more time consuming, silly, childish, I could go on. I find it stupid to the extreme, but then we are forced to work with what we have. Compton is not God's answer for historians, he is a historian with a friggin opinion, period. The different numbers and wives supposedly married to Joseph Smith is rather extensive. This is the knee-jerk type of response from an editor who only seeks contention, nothing more. We can play the silly game for a while longer. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 22:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Once again, you resort to ad hominem argumentation. If you cite a historian's opinion, don't give your opinion in its place. - Juden (talk) 22:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Juden, I couldn't care less if it is clearly stated that Compton has reached a conclusion that JSJr. had such-and-such number or wives, and their names were...but this is still Compton's opinion/thesis/conclusion and does not, in and of itself, make it a reality. It must be stated that there is no clear consensus as to how many and who, and the difference between claiming to have been a 'wife' years after the fact and actually having been married to the man while he was alive. Best, A Sniper (talk) 23:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

If you don't object to stating Compton's position clearly, you should not have changed "Compton lists the following as Joseph Smith's wives:" to "Compton lists the following as possible wives:". Do you object to having the accurate statement ("Compton lists the following as Joseph Smith's wives:") returned to the article? By the way, there's no issue of post-mortem sealings in any listed instance: these women were all married to Smith during Smith's lifetime. There's no need to raise red herrings. - Juden (talk) 23:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I may have done one revert, but the change in wording was not originally my edit. The way you are proposing, which I take it was what was there previously, is fine with me. And, on the side, I would mention that there is a wealth or written testimonies, family histories, affidavits, etc. that, at the very least, cast doubt on some of the plural wife allegations...it is for this reason that a decisive statement that all of Compton's list is accurate and correct is simply bad history. Best, A Sniper (talk) 23:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

For the record, reverting a wording you don't disagree with, in favor of one which is erroneous, is not an appropriate revert. There has been a lot of reversion here because the usual editors revert before reading as a kneejerk response, and respond to their own personal feelings rather than the actual language involved in the article. There's been no statement in the article that "all of Compton's list is accurate and correct" (though it probably is); the statement, rather, was, and needs to be, "this is Compton's list". - Juden (talk) 00:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Come on, guys, the introductory sentence to the section needed a bit of tweaking, not a war. (Taivo (talk) 00:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC))

Yes, I know. I was the one who tried tweaking it, and got the war in response. - Juden (talk) 00:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that over the past couple of days a lot of us have gotten a bit worked up over some heated editing, which is why you might have gotten a war in response to your edit. Here's hoping we can all take a collective breath, and work together on this article. --Descartes1979 (talk) 00:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

that's a good hope, but an editorial change of a few words shouldn't be greeted with reversions and personal invective, rather than discussion, regardless of what the last two days have been like. - Juden (talk) 00:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Post-merge: Work to be done

Following the merge of the 1831 article into this one, these are the following items that I as needing to be done:

• Merge the 1843 polygamy revelation into this article.
• Fill in the chronological gap between 1831 and 1843. There are a number of developments during this time (Orson Pratt and Lyman Johnson's statements, 1835 and Fanny Alger, etc.).
• Perhaps it would make more sense to have two major sections sections: "1830s" and "1840s".

Please feel free to add to this "to do" list.--MrWhipple (talk) 01:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I just finished my first cut at cleaning up the merged material for the 1831 polygamy revelation. Please review and feel free to revert any of my edits or perform more cleanup. I think that all of the information there should remain, and it seems pretty NPOV and balanced to me. I will work on the 1843 merge a little later. --Descartes1979 (talk) 05:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I went through and removed some POV, rephrased for clarity, expanded the quote from the Phelps letter, and removed excessive wikilinks. I also changed the section names to allow for additional material that focuses on 1830's origins and 1840's development in Nauvoo. I'll try to expand on the 1830's material soon. I left the 1840's material untouched, as we're expecting the 1843 article to be merged into it.--MrWhipple (talk) 06:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I am going to pause for a little while on merging the 1843 article - I want to see how this first section shapes up before introducing too much change all at once, since there is so much heavy editing going on. As the 1830s section becomes more stable, I will then merge the 1843 section. --Descartes1979 (talk) 16:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I added some testimony by early witnesses that Joseph Smith started teaching plural marriage in 1831 or 1832.--MrWhipple (talk) 18:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Table of Wives

Maybe it's not finished, but as I look at it, the table of wives has only three columns worth of information--the CJCLDS column, the three columns that have but one "yes", and the Fawn Brodie column. Can't the three columns with one yes be merged into one? (Taivo (talk) 06:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC))

I did not start this table, but I am trying to fill it in, because it is obviously not complete. Don't delete the columns just yet. --Descartes1979 (talk) 06:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I have updated as much as I can, including adding a few wives that were missing. I don't have a copy of No Man Knows My History so I can't finish that list, though I suspect that nearly all of them will be yes's. I also don't have a copy of D. Michael Quinn's book, so I have no idea about that column. If any of you guys have those books, please help us out with the table. --Descartes1979 (talk) 08:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Vastly superior table now (and longer). (Taivo (talk) 11:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC))

Now that the list is longer, I figured it was a good idea to split this off into its own article. See List of the wives of Joseph Smith, Jr.. A concise list will be sufficient in this article with just the notables. --Descartes1979 (talk) 18:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

There used to be an article that listed all of the wives of Joseph Smith, but I could not find it again when I was looking this morning. As I recall it did not present the information in list form, but each wife had a short section written about her. I don't know where it went; but I like this new article.--Storm Rider ^(talk) 20:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The Alleged 1831 Revelation

This section is too long and too detailed. The evidence for this revelation is next to zero--a letter written 30 years after the fact. Just because the Tanners assert that this proves X or Y is meaningless--their writings are not scholarly, but are filled with propagandistic assumptions based upon the tiniest of hints. If I got up in the morning and said, "It looks like it will rain" and it didn't, the Tanners would produce a check I bounced two years ago and call me a false prophet who cannot be trusted. Even the one Mormon scholar in the references who thinks the 1831 revelation has anything to do with polygamy uses the Phelps letter as his evidence. This is not evidence. The whole section is WAY too detailed for Wikipedia purposes and needs to be boiled down to a paragraph at most. The strongest evidence against it is that not a single one of the Mormon leaders actually started preaching about this or putting it into practice. None of them started marrying "Lamanites". The 184x revelation is the foundation. It needs to be the revelation that is highlighted here since subsequent practice and theological discussion is entirely based on it. Wikipedia is not the place for speculation, so it is not the place for the details of the alleged 1831 revelation. (Taivo (talk) 12:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC))

By "alleged" I mean that its connection to polygamy is alleged. The revelation about marrying Native Americans isn't alleged (cf. the Ezra Booth quote), but its connection to polygamy is 100% speculative, undocumented, and unscientific. While the Native American issue is very mildly of interest to one or two people out there, its totally unsupported connection to polygamy is too small to warrant the amount of space it is given here and, indeed, any lengthy discussion at all in Wikipedia since this is not the place for speculation. At the most, it should be discussed in an article on "Joseph Smith, Jr., and Native Americans". The 1831 revelation is NOT provably about polygamy, despite whatever the Tanners might say. (Taivo (talk) 15:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC))

At the time of the purported revelation, there is no evidence that it was about polygamy. Booth is the only individual who wrote about it at the time and had it been about something as shocking as polygamy, then one would think he would have been shouting it from the roof tops, which he did not. However, there is certainly evidence that both polemic writers and LDS leaders have gone back to this account and attempted to cast it in terms of polygamy. Some salient points that should be highlighted; 1) no one knew of the "revelation" at the time or for several decades, 2) there is no evidence that it motivated any of the elders he addressed to do anything at the time, i.e. there is no evidence men started taking Native American women to wife (first wife or otherwise), 3) it has never been accepted as revelation or direction, etc. by the saints. Some leaders/members of the LDS Church have attempted to use this to strengthen the case for support of polygamy. I am thinking here of Joseph F. Smith when he was Church Historian. Granted he did not "reveal" it to the church, but he appears to have mentioned it to others. In some respects I would place the blame on his/their shoulders because polemic writers later picked it up and started framing it in the position of a polygamy revelation also. Both stretch and both are wrong. This is not to say that I am against discussing this; far from it. I think the references are good as long as we present the information as each has discussed it. The most we can say is the some polemic writers and some LDS leaders think Joseph Smith may have been talking about polygamy when he said... --Storm Rider ^(talk) 15:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Tavio that the 1831 revelation section is too long and too detailed. The possible connection to 2 Nephi 30:6 is mentioned adequately; the entire subsection with analysis is duplicative and unnecessary. Also the scholarly debate section should be reduced to "some scholars agree; others don't" sort of approach, with footnotes for further reading. Also scratch the suppression claim by the Tanners -- we don't need to include every little criticism here; you can put that on Opposition to Mormonism.--MrWhipple (talk) 15:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I removed the duplicitous section, and I think the scholarly debate section can be condensed, moving a lot of info to footnotes.--Descartes1979 (talk) 16:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

OK - I condensed a lot, but I think I did a good job of not eliminating any information, just making it more concise. Please review. The section is much shorter now, and much more to the point I think. --Descartes1979 (talk) 17:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Very good. It retains the essential information and eliminates duplication and unnecessary polemic. --MrWhipple (talk) 18:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed restructuring of section "Controversy over polygamy accusations" into "Legacy of Polygamy After Smith" or such

I do not think much of the structure and title of the section "Controversy over polygamy accusations"—everything about this subject is controversial, so the title and focus of the subsection are POV and not to the point, and it muddies the waters for the very relevant historical details that appear there. I propose a rewrite under the new title "Legacy of Polygamy After Smith," the goal of which to be a terse description of the legacy of Smith and polygamy. No laundry lists, but a brief, insightful, and interesting history of the subject post-Smith. Including references not just to the LDS church and subsequent Mormon polygamy doctrine, both in the 1890 Manifesto and the Second Manifesto, but also to the FLDS churches, maybe Rulon Jeffs, and April 2008 raid on the YFZ ranch in Texas, which after all are making the news a lot recently. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 03:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I was not talking about the "Controversies" section at all. The Controversies section is actually a good one because it seems fairly well-focused on how the different authorities/branches of the Movement view SMITH's polygamy. Since that is the topic of the article, then it seems fairly relevant. It can be a bit better-focused and shortened, I think, but I don't see it as POV at all. My problem was when you start to talk about the Manifestos and Jeffs in this article. I see that as borderline irrelevant. Those things belong in an article on Polygamy in general or on Polygamy in the LDS Movement. This article is tightly focused on Smith and Polygamy. (Taivo (talk) 09:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC))

God forbid that we address the FLDS, a splinter group of 10,000, a fringe group within the movment to themselves. There is not a comparison between the FLDS and any of the major groups ever in the history of the movement. At no previous time has a majority of the saints practiced polygyny; it was always a minority or significant minority of the members. That position completely with the FLDS among many others. I know that it would be nice to paint the entire movement with the actions of the few and to make Joseph responsible for the twisted actions of other people, but that would not be acceptable. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 14:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Scope, and possible series?

I have been looking over the various articles about Mormon polygamy - and the article Plural Marriage is obviously intended to be the main article on the subject. I just can't help but thinking that the whole series of articles needs a better structure, with main points in that other article, and then branches off to these other articles. That having been said - what is the scope of this article? Joseph Smith's teachings and the fallout of them is such a huge part (maybe all-inclusive?) of the topic - perhaps inevitably, this article will include everything that is included in the Plural Marriage article? Perhaps we should talk about an overall structure and series of articles on Mormon polygamy, starting with renaming the Plural Marriage article to Mormonism and polylgamy, and then creating sub articles on more specific topics. Right now, I don't see that structure, and think it is something we should strive for. What do you guys think? --Descartes1979 (talk) 00:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

You have hit the nail squarely on the head. There should be, perhaps three or four articles: 1) the main article "Mormonism and Polygamy", which is an overview of the entire issue (and might actually be the shortest of the three because it is the overview that 99% of all readers want--they don't give a damn about the Phelps letter); 2) this article on "Joseph Smith, Jr. and Polygamy" which details the origin of the doctrine in Joseph Smith's controversial revelations and the different views on whether or not he actually received those revelations (pretty close to what we have now); 3) an article on the "Mormon Polygamy in Utah" which looks at the practice in the Beehive State until the Manifesto and the immediate aftereffects of the Manifesto; and 4) an article on "Modern Mormon Polygamy" which looks at the continuing practice of polygamy among the Mormon splinter groups in Utah. (Taivo (talk) 00:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC))

That is exactly what I was thinking. Lets formalize this proposal, and invite a bunch of people to comment. --Descartes1979 (talk) 04:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Series and Restructuring proposal

Per Taivo above, I propose that we restructure this entire series of articles as follows - this will be a big project, and one that I am willing to spearhead as long as I get some help along the way:

1. Create a series template to guide readers on the topic of polygamy and Mormonism. - Done, see Template:LDSpolygamy --Descartes1979 (talk) 00:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
2. Rename Plural Marriage to Polygamy and the Latter Day Saint movement, and make it a top level article about Mormonism and Polygamy from its inception to its current incarnation among splinter groups. (mostly done --Descartes1979 (talk) 00:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC))
3. Rename Joseph Smith, Jr. and polygamy to Origin of Latter Day Saint polygamy, and keep it in its current form, with some revision. Done --Descartes1979 (talk) 00:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
   1. The merge proposal for 1843 polygamy revelation will still stand, and be completed soon. Done - --Descartes1979 (talk) 06:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
4. Create an article called Latter-day Saint polygamy in Utah to discuss post Joseph Smith polygamy under Brigham Young and other subsequent leaders. Done - see Latter Day Saint polygamy in the late 19th century --Descartes1979 (talk) 07:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
   1. Possibly merge 1890 Manifesto and Second Manifesto into the new article. Done - no merge for now. --Descartes1979 (talk) 07:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
   2. Make sure mention is made of the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act, Poland Act, Reynolds v. United States, and the Edmunds Act, as well as the Smoot Hearings. I think these articles should stand on their own as sub articles to this main article. Done. --Descartes1979 (talk) 07:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
5. Possibly create an article called Current state of polygamy in the Latter Day Saint movement if the topic is large enough to warrant its own article and bogs down the Latter-day Saint polygamy in Utah article. Done --Descartes1979 (talk) 18:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
6. Keep Polygamy in the United States, but pare down significantly the information on Mormonism (which is most of the article), and move it to Polygamy and the Latter Day Saint movement
7. The following articles should be part of the series related articles:
   1. List of the wives of Joseph Smith, Jr. Done --Descartes1979 (talk) 05:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
   2. List of Latter Day Saint practitioners of plural marriageDone --Descartes1979 (talk) 05:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
   3. Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day SaintsDone --Descartes1979 (talk) 05:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
   4. Celestial MarriageDone --Descartes1979 (talk) 05:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
   5. Others?

I would like to stress that this does not mean that information would be eliminated. Both Mormon and non-Mormon editors should feel comfortable that all articles involved are NPOV and fair to both perspectives.

Please comment so we can get a sense of what the editor base at large thinks.

• Support - Personally, I think this is a good idea because it will help the reader wade through the information easily to get the information they want. The top level article will have the information that some readers will want, and if they want to dig down, they can look at the sub articles. Right now I believe the existing articles are disparate, and have a serious lack of overall direction. --Descartes1979 (talk) 04:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support - But with some reservations about the use of the term "Mormon" and "Mormonism". In conformity with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Latter Day Saints), could I suggest that instead of calling it "Mormonism and Polygamy" you call it "Polygamy and the Latter Day Saint movement"? The CofC tends to get excluded when just the term "Mormonism" is used for pre-Brigham Young events, and I think you'll get a lot of push-back trying to apply the Mormonism term to the FLDS, which is inevitably what will happen. Using "Latter Day Saint movement" instead will nip all of that in the bud. So "Polygamy and the Latter Day Saint movement"; "Origins of Latter Day Saint polygamy"; "Latter-day Saint polygamy" (instead of Mormon Polygamy in Utah); and "Fundamentalist Latter-day Saint polygamy" (instead of "Current state of polygamy in Mormonism"). --TrustTruth (talk) 04:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Agreed - changing the wording of the proposal - but not the last one you mention, aren't there other sects besides the FLDS that practice polygamy? --Descartes1979 (talk) 04:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support - I agree with the "LDS Movement" tag. I grew up in Utah, so "Mormon" is just second-nature. (Taivo (talk) 04:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC))
• Support. Looks good. I think having top-level articles will greatly help the reader. Cool Hand Luke 05:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support - and I appreciate TrustTruth's reference to CofC which illustrates the issue of inclusion. Best, A Sniper (talk) 07:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support with the caveat: The pronouncements 1890 Manifesto and Second Manifesto had an impact that went far beyond Utah, so merging them within a proposed Latter-day Saint polygamy in Utah would not be be appropriate historically. Rather, I suggest merging these within Polygamy and the Latter Day Saint movement, or simply changing the name and focus of Latter-day Saint polygamy in Utah to Latter-day Saint polygamy from the mid-19th to early 20th century or such as Taivo suggests below, which incorporates all the subjects you mention. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 10:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support --John Foxe (talk) 13:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support: Particularly keeping the term Mormon out and Latter Day Saint movement in. Some of the smaller splinter groups from the CofC maintain a pretty strict interpretation of events around polygyny, Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. Would you consider using redirects from polygamy titles to the more correct title of polygyny? I almost think it is spitting into the wind given the prevalence of the term, but it does seem like we should use the correct term even when others don't. I am not strongly committed to this, but it is reflective of my anal retentive nature. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments / questions

So 1843 polygamy revelation will be merged as part of this reform?

I agree that all of the law and case law should be kept separate. I'm not so sure about merging the manifestos. A lot more could be said about them. They were made under quite different circumstances. If they're merged, I think it should be without prejudice (that is, if a lot more material was added, they could be re-divided). Cool Hand Luke 04:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• I agree - if the manifestos and the 1843 revelation can stand on their own, then that is cool with me - the 1843 polygamy revelation already went through an (admittedly brief) discussion on merging, and the vast majority of editors approved of the merge. --Descartes1979 (talk) 05:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with it too, although I don't know as much about early LDS history (I'm more into territorial), I'm just trying to clarify. It wasn't clear whether it's part of the omnibus restructure, or an option to be ironed out later. I would support it now. Cool Hand Luke 05:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I would think that everything associated with the LDS movement and polygamy should be folded into this structure. And the Manifestos should be included in the structure--either as the conclusion of the LDS Polygamy in Utah article or as the introduction to the LDS Polygamy in the 20th century article. They are the key transition between those two periods. I think that putting them separate may do an injustice to their importance. The other option is that they are a linked article in the chain--Origins of LDS Polygamy/LDS Polygamy in Utah/The Official End of LDS Polygamy (the Manifestos, the Utah Constitution, Statehood)/LDS Polygamy in the 20th Century (or something like that). (Taivo (talk) 09:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC))

• A agree with Descartes1979 above that the 1843 polygamy revelation should be merged into the renamed Origins of Latter Day Saint polygamy, which makes the most sense because it was first codified here. I also think it currently makes sense to merge the manifestos into an article as mentioned above. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 11:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I also agree.--John Foxe (talk) 13:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• Another article that should be included with many of these would be the newly created article on the 1886 Revelation by LDS Church President John Taylor, which is commonly used as the basis for continuing polygamy in Mormon Fundamentalist groups. FLDS, Apostolic United Brethren, The Kingston Clan, and many others have used it as the primary verification for the continuation of polygamy...but the 1886 revelaton is relatively obscure to others in the Latter Day Saint movement. Twunchy (talk) 20:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Concern about sources used

I'm concerned about some of the sources being used in this article and how they are being cited. For example, weaving Michael Marquardt's opinion on the Nauvoo Expositor episode into the narrative without identifying him for the ardent Mormon critic that he is (he was simply identified as a historian) is hardly npov. When writing about a charged subject like this one is, the very least we can do is strive for objectivity in identifying source material. Thanks. --TrustTruth (talk) 04:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I see you [?] changed "historian" to "critic" in the sentence

According to critic H. Michael Marquardt, "this was an attempt by Smith to obscure the real intent of the revelatory message,

which does properly identify this as Marquardt's opinion. I suggest that a neutral description would be "author," even though historian and critic are both correct. Also, this comment really does not appear to be at all about a "concern about sources used"—Marquardt certainly qualifies as a reliable source—but rather one about the description of Marquardt. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 16:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It is a concern about the source, as Marquardt is not an objective author, and not an objective "historian" -- instead, he starts off from a premise of critical (critical as in criticizing) assumptions upon which his writings are based. As such, he needs to be properly identified as a critic. Don't see why there would be a problem identifying him as such. --TrustTruth (talk) 15:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Mostly done with construction of Latter Day Saint polygamy in the late 19th century

Per the restructuring initiative above, I have finished my first cut at the new article Latter Day Saint polygamy in the late 19th century, and could really use some help in filling out the content for things that I have missed, and general wiki style article revision. There are also two sections that I don't have as much info on right now, (you will see them towards the end of the article) which, again, I could use some help filling out. --Descartes1979 (talk) 04:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

A consensus of historians agree that

The article begins: A consensus of historians agree that.

This wording suggests that "consensus" is being introduced as a collective noun for a "group" of historians, in the same way that people refer to a gaggle of geese or a herd of elephants. This peculiar use of the word consensus distracts attention from the point of the sentence.

The word consensus also raises the question "how many in the consensus"?

The previous wording of the opening line began: "Historians widely agree". The editor who made the change did so because they thought "widely" to be a weasel word. Probably it is but I think the way consensus is used here makes it a weasel word in this instance.

I hope this is useful comment. Wanderer57 (talk) 21:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

It is a useful comment. The problem is that not all historians have agreed on several aspects of this topic - origins, timeline, numbers of wives, etc. At the same time, there are sensitive issues at play regarding family histories and differing accounts, in varied sources. I believe I was the user objecting to "widely" as a weasel word, which was perhaps overkill on my part. What ended up being agreed upon by the majority of regular contributors on the subject, covering a number of related articles, was the use of the term a consensus of historians - this being the most direct way of stating that 'many/alot of/the majority of/quite a few historians as opposed to ALL. Best, A Sniper (talk) 21:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. How about the alternate wording:

The consensus of historians is that....

I think this avoids giving the impression that consensus is a collective noun. Wanderer57 (talk) 15:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the phrase "consensus of historians agree" is not NPOV. It introduces "undue weight" trying to assert that the things presented are the "truth" and prevents readers from forming their own opinions. Also, a quick search of Wikipedia for that phrase turns up Historical revisionism as the top hit and no other articles that use that wording. If the information presented are verifiable, then it requires no historians to agree or disagree - the information is just verifiable. History has often been a series of "consensus of historians" being proven wrong by new information. A more NPOV wording would replace "The consensus of historians is that" with "Sources cite that".--Ace2012 (talk) 03:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing wrong with writing that "X position is widely accepted and Y position is a fringe position that is widely discredited". That is part of encyclopedic content and is not POV. Otherwise, in mentioning fringe theories, we give them undue importance, which is introducing POV inadvertently. X and Y are not equal alternatives. (Taivo (talk) 06:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC))

A Conspicuous Omission

This article is missing any information about the prior presence (or absence) of polygamy in the society Joseph Smith grew up in.

Wanderer57 (talk) 00:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Funny you should mention that...I am just now starting to write about Jacob Cochran and his polygamous followers in the states of New York and Maine, many of whom were converted by some of the leading Mormon missionaries of that period (1832). These Cochranite colonies existed before the Mormon church was established, and by 1830 Cochran was on the run due to violating marriage laws. Best, A Sniper (talk) 00:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Wrong Link??

Subsection "Children born to polygamous marriages" includes the link [[Patrilineality|non-male]], which is in the last line of the quote. I have the sense that it should read [[Patrilineality|male]] or perhaps [[Matrilineality|non-male]].

Will someone else please take a look? Wanderer57 (talk) 17:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

"No alleged children of Joseph Smith, Jr. born to women other than Emma Smith has ever been proven, though the question of Smith's progeny from his alleged polygamous wives has been raised since his death. Several alleged Smith descendants have been identified but highly accurate DNA tests have in 2007 eliminated four candidates though research into this history is complicated by the facts that Y-DNA genetic testing for non-male lines is not possible, and two candidates died as infants."

"non-male" is more correct, although what it really means is "not entirely male", i.e. each generation of descendants has to be a male for their Y chromosomes to have been inherited from the same ancestor. Perhaps reword as: "Y-DNA genetic testing is only possible for descendents with an unbroken male line, and two candidates died as infants."? Madeleine ✉ ✍ 12:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I revised the sentence. Wanderer57 (talk) 13:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

John Bennett

Quoting the second paragraph of "Children born to polygamous marriages":

Smith was accused in 1886 by Sarah Pratt of allowing John C. Bennett, a medical doctor, to perform abortions on polygamous wives who were officially single, which she alleged limited Smith's progeny from these wives. Orson Pratt, Sarah Pratt's husband, considered Bennett a liar: "J.C. Bennett has published lies concerning myself & family & the people with which I am connected....His book I have read with the greatest disgust. No candid honest man can or will believe it. He has disgraced himself in eyes of all civilized society who will despise his very name", whereas Sarah Pratt herself said, "[I] know that the principle statements in John C. Bennett's book on Mormonism are true,"

This is fascinating stuff but very inconclusive as it stands. Can't tell from this what sort of thing Bennett wrote. Wanderer57 (talk) 14:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Initially dynastic?

There is an obvious section missing, one that documents the theory that some or all of the early polygamous unions were dynastic -- not sexual -- in nature (the later ones were not). Compton himself believes this is possible. That's still a murky issue that isn't really addressed by the article. --TrustTruth (talk) 16:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

TrustTruth: Just to be clear. Is "the later ones were not" meant to say "were not dynastic", or "were not sexual"? Thanks. Wanderer57 (talk) 16:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

"the later ones were not" dynastic -- actually maybe the later ones were dynastic too, but a lot of them at a minimum involved enough sex to make babies! My main point is that there is a view out there that some of the early polygamous unions -- maybe even all the Joseph Smith ones -- were dynastic, not sexual, in nature. That view deserves its own subsection at the very least, and more likely also deserves a mention in the opening paragraph. It goes to the very root of LDS polygamy's origins -- was the root dynastic, then evolved into sexual; or was the root sexual, then took on dynastic characteristics. --TrustTruth (talk) 17:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Good Faith Edits

Greetings. I have continued making good faith edits, with references. A user has reverted them without any discussion or attempt to salvage anything. As I do not want to engage in an edit war, I would appreciate any input. Best, A Sniper (talk) 23:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I fully concur with the edits you have made and strongly disagree with the reverts done by the editor in question. I am of the opinion that if he feels this material is out of place or needs to be reworded, he should be considerate enough to discuss it here first before unilaterally making the decision that it needs to be altered. I think you are fully justified in undoing his reverts, and I will back you up on that all the way if necessary. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 02:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Concern about incomplete quotes from sources cited.

I'm starting this topic out of my concern about incomplete quotes from the cited sources. I submit that these quotations DO contribute much to the article. However, at this point, I am aware of at least three that I know for a fact to be incomplete quotations. I have seen many of the complete quotes cited in other material. I just can't remember where at the moment. However, I think the best way to find out just how accurate/inaccurate these quotes as they currently stand are is to go to the sources we have, then look at where these "quotes" originally came from. No self-respecting historian that I know of would include quotes from a previous account without citing where the quotes originally came from. And my suggestion is to find the quotes in the source we have, then look and see where they got it from, then see what the material it came from actually says. I have a sneaking suspicion that in doing so, we will find that the quotes as they now stand are either incomplete or quoted out of context. I mean, just look at the way they stand now. There are numerous dots (indicating omitted text) and numerous brackets (indicating edited texts). I have found that in some cases, the authors of the works cited will often quote out of context to twist the meaning of the actual quote to suit their purposes and to make a point that has clear bias. I think that such material has no place on WP. I feel this issue needs to be addressed. Thoughts? --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 02:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I must agree. Although it is a lot of work, the sources need to be scrutinized somewhat. Best, A Sniper (talk) 05:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Characterization of Church Dissenters in Recent Edits

As a historian, I have a big problem with characterizing Nauvoo dissenters as adulterers, thieves etc., as has been done in recent posts. It is true that they were charged with such offenses, but "the consensus of historians" would find such charges highly questionable--of the same type as charges against Pratt and Brotherton(people who rejected polygamy and had their reputations bismirched as a result). What I am pleading for is that we do not duplicate the polemical (and probably untrue) characterizations of 1840s Nauvoo dissenters as blackguards that so many official Latter-day Saint histories did in the late nineteenth century (including early RLDS histories). If we do add information about Nauvoo dissenters being charged with such moral and civil offenses, we need to qualify this with what "the consensus of historians" say about such charges.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this article is about the origins of LDS polygamy and the disputed paragraph doesn't seem to have anything at all to do with the issue. It may have something to do with the murder of Smith, but it doesn't seem to have anything to do with polygamy. (Taivo (talk) 20:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC))

Nobody is painting anybody in a POV light. These folks were brought to church court on these charges, regardless if they were true, half true, or false - that isn't the point. All historical data on the subject is clear that the church had problems with this group of individuals, regardless of whether the charges were trumped up or fully spurious. What is stated are the charges these folks had brought against them by the church. As a historian, I would figure you were aware of the charges the church made. I shall myself, when I have a spare moment, include the references for these charges. If you want to add references for their defence, or that demonstrate that the charges were false, etc., go right ahead. But blanket purging? Sorry - no thanks. And what this has to do with polemical RLDS is beyond me. Best, A Sniper (talk) 20:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Dhowlett - RE: "taking this to the discussion board", if you scroll up you'll see I did just that when you first started reverting everything I had worked on. A Sniper (talk) 21:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Sniper--I'm obviously a newbie on wikipedia etiquette. My apologies for that. First, I agree completely that such charges were made, just as I agree that individuals made libelous statements against Joseph Smith. Taking the charges at face value would be dangerously naive on both accounts. If you want sources on Nauvoo dissenters, consult Willaim Law's diary and the introductory essay by Cook (Grandin Book, 1994). Also, look into the documents and commentary in Roger Launius and John Hallwas's book "Cultures in Conflict" as well as the more complete histories on polygamy (Van Wagoner and Compton). Once you have done that, I would be fairly curious if you still wanted to leave your statements on Nauvoo dissenters unqualified as they are now. I understand your position. Believe it or not, I once held positions on Nauvoo history very similar to your own. Dhowlett (david-howlett@uiowa.edu) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhowlett (talk • contribs) 21:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Dhowlett, I certainly accept your apologies and thank you for being forthright - there is nothing wrong with being a newbie. However, you'll find that there are many of us constantly editing all of the Mormonism pages, all from various backgrounds. Regardless, our main goal is to keep articles NPOV overall, which means concerning ourselves with the zealous edits of the extreme elements: antis on the one hand and the overly religious POVs on the other. You'll find that many of us are familiar with all of the works you've mentioned, as well as the primary sources of the time. What we try and do is work together to improve articles and to pursue as neutral an article overall as can be achieved. I suggest you join the Latter Day Saint movement project group where you can find a list of members: here Best, A Sniper (talk) 22:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Somebody needs to clarify why this polemic/fact is related to the origins of polygamy in the LDS movement. It's irrelevant as far as I can tell. That's why I reverted the most recent addition of the paragraph to the article. I'm not against the material or the references or the POV necessarily. I question its RELEVANCE only. (Taivo (talk) 22:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC))

The main reason for the existence of the Nauvoo Expositor was to print the polygamy accusation against Smith. It is the credibility of the group behind the paper that is at issue. My most recent edit was to note that the group had action taken against them previous to this in church courts. If my edit wasn't relevant, the motive being NPOV, I would suggest that nothing related to the paper would be relevant either. Best, A Sniper (talk) 22:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

OK. I removed the portions that I felt were rather defamatory and irrelevant to the issue at hand and made the direct connection between the dissenters and the publication of polygamy claims more apparent. (Taivo (talk) 23:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC))

Taivo are you editing under a sockpuppet called Dhowlett? Just checking. Those details are not defamatory, they give context to the whole episode. There is no reason to leave them out, as they help the reader understand motives. --TrustTruth (talk) 23:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

You can check my logs or whatever. I don't even know what a sockpuppet is. You will find that I have a long history of active involvement in LDS issues trying to keep things as NPOV as possible. The extraneous material including the threat seems very irrelevant. It may add color, but it doesn't add information. The guys had been put in church court. That is their motive. The threats and charges aren't really relevant and just get in the way of the primary connection between "charged in church court"--"formed a group of dissidents"--"published about polygamy". THAT is the relevant information. The threat just interrupts the flow of the connection and leads to the implication that it was these guys who murdered Smith. That is not relevant here. It seems relevant on a page devoted to the murder of Smith, but not here. (Taivo (talk) 00:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC))

The info is certainly relevant. If one can write about the Nauvoo Expositor yet be told that the motives of the group behind it aren't relevant, that does not support NPOV. The fact that there existed threats, within a month of the Smith brothers being killed, is certainly important historical information. The POV way the article read previously seemed to me to infer that a concerned bunch of folks got together to print the truth, and baddie JSJr destroyed the press. This needed to be balanced with info on the group. Best, A Sniper (talk) 00:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I never said that the printing of the Expositor polygamy material was not relevant. And the motives of the group are clearly spelled out in "they were charged in church court". The threat, however, has nothing to do with polygamy. I clearly stated that it was relevant in the article on Smith's murder, but I honestly don't see its relevance here where the topic under discussion is the origin of polygamy in the LDS movement. Used here, it simply detracts from the point of the article. It's not about polygamy and, therefore, is irrelevant. (Taivo (talk) 04:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC))

My points would be that there was an antagonistic group from the time of Bennett, who was excommunicated from the church on charges of adultery stemming from 'spiritual wifery'; Law became 'leader' of said group; group members were hauled before church court on various charges (based on truth, falsehoods or a mix); group members formed their own church; at the same time group were putting together polygamy allegations for the Expositor, JSJr. was involved in lawsuits in the civil court with group members; out of the antagonistic scenario between JSJr. and the group, threats were made against the Smiths; Smiths killed the next month. It is rather impossible to pull the polygamy story out of the context of Nauvoo happenings. Without qualifying who the Expositor folks were, it becomes POV - remove it all, or make sure the whole story is concisely covered. Best, A Sniper (talk) 04:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

You have made an excellent argument for why this material is relevant to Smith's murder. I have no qualms about that. But this article is narrowly focused on the origin of polygamy in the LDS Movement. The threats, etc., involve much broader issues than just polygamy and therefore exceed the bounds of the origins of polygamy. Your material above is good for the polygamy issue up until you get to the statement: "JSJr. was involved in lawsuits..." At that point you stray from polygamy into the issues surrounding the murder, which is not germane here. You have said you are a "historian". I don't know your CV, but I know intimately how we academics work--we want to cram every single detail into every single thing we write so that no one can question our statements. Here in Wikipedia we must control the urge to include every single detail or else our articles become unreadable to the general public. The paragraph in question in the article (as your "summary" above) suffers from the "too much detail to lose the general reader" syndrome. I'm sure you are an expert on the matter, but there's too much detail--move it to the murder of Smith article. (Taivo (talk) 04:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC))

I do not recall ever calling myself a historian. In any event, if there is discussion of William Law and the other members of the group behind the polygamy allegations of the Expositor, it doesn't do any favors to the casual reader not to know some background (two or three sentences at most) of the back & forth between JSJr. and that group. The group publicly called Smith a polygamist, Smith publicly denied it. The group members and Smith were involved in lawsuits in which Smith denied polygamy. On the other hand, members of the group such as the Law brothers and the Higbee brothers had been excommunicated for adultery originating in Bennett's 'spiritual wifery', which is relevant within the history of Latter Day Saint polygamy. The group threatened Smith, and published polygamy allegations against him. Smith took part in what led to the destruction of the Expositor, and the group went to Carthage to raise a mob that came back and killed the brothers. With all due respect, without a proper contextual foreground, the reader would reach a POV conclusion. Best, A Sniper (talk) 05:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Context for polygamy is one thing that is already provided in spades with the charges, accusations, and denials. Once you get into the threats, the mob, and the murder, however, the polygamy context ends because it had moved beyond polygamy. It is so easy to get caught up in the rush of things that it is easy to forget the focus. You keep writing this and I keep telling you that from the point of the threat until the end it isn't about polygamy anymore but about the murder. The context is quite well established. If you feel it necessary, then ONE sentence along the lines of "This antagonism between the dissidents and Smith continued to escalate and culminated in the mob murder of the Smith brothers" is quite sufficient to close out the episode. But the details of the threat and the murder are peripheral to the issue of polygamy and certainly not worth "two or three sentences". The details need to be in the article on Smith's murder, not in this article on the origin of LDS polygamy. The focus here should always be on the issue of polygamy and diversions into other issues should be avoided. (Taivo (talk) 07:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC))

I notice now that that Dhowlett guy say "As an historian" and not you. Sorry to confuse the two of you. (Taivo (talk) 07:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC))

Well, two regular users, whose main participation at Wikipedia is on LDS history pages, differ with you. Without bona fide references detailing the antagonism between JSJR. and the Law group, in which polygamy allegations was a major part, it is impossible for the reader to grasp what was happening. To suggest that the polygamy story and the death of JSJr. and his brother are either unrelated or should be isolated to separate articles, well, that flies in the face of the LDS historical narrative. These were incidents that took place within a period of eight weeks. Best, A Sniper (talk) 15:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Then if you think it is absolutely necessary to mention the death threat, then you need to tie it in better with the context. As it stands, it is not clear at all exactly what this has to do with polygamy. That is my point. I am not a stupid reader and have been involved with editing LDS issues myself for over a year. If it is unclear to me what this has to do with polygamy, then I'm sure it is unclear to others. As the author, you have the context built into your head, but as a reader it is not clear what this has to do with polygamy. (Taivo (talk) 16:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC))

The core of this issue appears to be the objection that the "consensus of historians" seem to have objections to describing the dissidents as some have. However, I am unsure exactly what the "consensus of historians" means. I am aware of at least five historians who write about the events of this period that make it clear that in their opinion, the dissidents were guilty as charged. I can't off the top of my head remember where I came across those historians, but as soon as I remember, I will post what they say and where it came from here. A consensus seems to be synonymous with "majority." And there are PLENTY of historians that DO NOT hold the view that the editor claims is the "consensus." --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 23:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The relevance of the death threat is still not being addressed specifically in your comments. You just say "we need to show context", but you have failed to show how the court cases do not show context, but the death threat does. If the court cases sufficiently show context, then the death threat (which is not directly related to the issue of polygamy), is not necessary. So why does the death threat show motive, but the court cases and acrimony do not? You need to do more than just continually restating "We must show motive". HOW does the death threat show motive where the other issues do not? (Taivo (talk) 03:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC))

If you'll be kind enough as to give me a few days before continuing to revert, I'll add more detail/references re: these eight weeks. Best, A Sniper (talk) 03:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Taivo, I'm really sorry. But I have to side with A Sniper on this one. Joseph Jackson has been described as an infamous character in Mormon history who joined with the dissidents in plotting attempts against Smith's life. One such attempt was a sham battle in which a "nonloaded" gun would be fired near Smith, who was to have been placed in the thick of it to better witness what was going on. Another time, Jackson threw in with the group when they tried to get Smith declared a fallen prophet, and the plan was to assassinate Smith if he did not reverse the Church court rulings against them. Smith's life was threatened numerous other times by Jackson being among the dissidents, and I think you'll find on further study that Jackson even had a hand in the eventual murder of Smith. All this came about as a result of Church court rulings relating to the dissidents, which in turn were brought about by the dissidents' claim that Smith authorized them to practice "spiritual wifery" which was a "free-love" type version of what would later become the doctrine of polygamy. I hope this helps demonstrate the relevance of this in the article, and that you will wait for the evidence A Sniper promised. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 04:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

This is what is missing and what I've been asking for all along: How does this threat relate to polygamy specifically? It's not about "references" or "evidence" (I assume that you have references automatically and aren't just making things up). It's about how it relates specifically. That is what has not been addressed up until now and what I have continually been asking for. So Jgstokes has explained in detail how the death threats tie in. Now what is necessary is writing this in such a way that the average reader can understand how it ties in. The way it is written right now is the problem--the death threat is not tied into the issue of polygamy. It just sits there in the paragraph with no overt justification as to why it is there. You can think it implies it, but you can never predict what a reader will do with a statement like that. I didn't get that implication at all. The sentence needs to overtly tie that threat in with polygamy. That's all I've been asking for all along, but you guys keep talking about "references" instead of addressing the real question: "How is this relevant?" It's about words and not references. (Taivo (talk) 08:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC))

I understand you now, Taivo. Sorry if I misunderstood you. Glad I was able to help. I agree that this needs to be written in such a way that the average reader can understand how it ties in. I would be very happy to see anything you have in mind for this tie-in information. Verification for everything I set out in my last post will likely be provided by A Sniper as soon as possible. In the meantime, I think that since you have the answers before you now, you will likely be able to compose a tie-in that can be quickly agreed upon, with references to be added as soon as possible. Sorry about the misunderstanding on my part. At the same time, I think perhaps there was a bit of a mutual misunderstanding going on. Hope this clears the air between us. I for one have full confidence in your ability to write the relevant tie-in now that you have the pertinent facts. Good luck, and keep me posted if you would. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 20:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree too. I do want to say one thing, which I've stated before, maybe just to clear the air. What we regular editors are constantly trying to do is keep the NPOV in a world of extremes: anti-Mormons with axes to grind on the one hand, and religious zealots on the other. Since we all come from varying backgrounds, we act as checks and balances for each other. In this specific case, re: the Expositor, I came across a section that in my opinion was POV - this to me meant that it gave the reader the impression that JSJr. was entirely at fault, and that a group came from out of the blue to print some truths, etc. I immediately injected the sentences at issue - I realize fully that I did not provide the tie-in, but this was merely to counter POV. What I will endeavour to do now is show the links, with your patience. I hope my reasoning is sound and that I am making some sense. Sorry for any misunderstanding or breach of etiquette on my part. Best, A Sniper (talk) 21:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Claytonmania

Use all the information on William Clayton that is relevant, but please find accurate sources - not sloppy quotes from unreliable sources (anti-Mormon websites, third hand accounts at the geocities site, etc.). How about from the first publication (1921) or G.D. Smith's Signature Books version? Best, A Sniper (talk) 16:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - I just ordered a copy, so I should have a better reference soon. Also, just a thought, if you are concerned about the reliability of the Clayton journals, perhaps we can put a section on William Clayton about that, or even create a new article for the William Clayton journals, where we can discuss the ins and outs of its reliability. --Descartes1979 (talk) 17:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

That's actually a great (though daunting) prospect. Clayton quotes are powerful persuaders - usually entertained by apologists - which is why it is so important that reliability is ensured. Best, A Sniper (talk) 17:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Refute vs Reject

There is no POV in the word refute whereas there is in reject. The LDS perspective in all publications throughout the latter nineteenth century was that the RLDS and other churches had rejected doctrine, but RLDS publications from the same period challenged and refuted that doctrine; there is nothing in any of the publications, or currently in Launius (writing about the latter nineteenth century), to support that they were rejecting anything. Best, A Sniper (talk) 09:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, "refute" means "to prove wrong". It's the POV word! Unless you suggest that it's appropriate for Wikipedia to claim in its own voice that the evidence is "wrong", "refute" is absolutely inappropriate. And the issue is not whether they reject doctrine, but whether they reject the evidence that Smith practiced polygamy. Which they do. - Juden (talk) 10:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

"Refute" is a non-POV word in that it implies that there is an attempt to disprove evidence, which was done by RLDS sources. "Reject" is just saying it ain't so without any attempt to disprove it. The RLDS refuted the evidence (which, also includes the idea of rejecting the doctrine). If you want to say they rejected the doctrine that is correct, but they didn't reject the evidence, they refuted it. "Reject" is a much more POV word (implying blindedness, ignorance, etc.) than "refute". If you have sources for the word "reject", then present them here. But Wikipedia is a text of consensus and right now you are two to one against you. (Taivo (talk) 15:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC))

"Refute" means disproved, and no one but the RLDS (and not even all of them) imagine that the RLDS have disproved Smith's polygamy. You're simply wrong here, and being in the majority (of 2 to 1) doesn't make you any more right. Further, consensus isn't decided by "votes": in the context of three people, consensus would be unanimity. Until we make a compromise that results in that unanimity, I'll mark the article with an appropriate reader advisory warning. I'll suggest a compromise in the same edit. - Juden (talk) 16:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Once again you have allowed ignorance and arrogance to get in the way. You see POV where there is no intention of it. This time is it you who have chosen the POV word - go ahead and cite one latter nineteenth century RLDS source that doesn't argue against, challenge, refuse to believe or refute the LDS party line about JSJr. It doesn't make it correct. It doesn't mean they would challenge it now. It just means that, from 1860 until the mid-twentieth century, they refuted JSJr's involvement in these things - they didn't reject his involvement because they didn't believe he had ever been involved. It is historically correct to state refute and not refuse. A Sniper (talk) 17:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, I'm trying not to allow ignorance and arrogance to distort the article. What you have thus far failed to see is that refute strongly implice that they were successful in their arguments against the historicity of Smith's polygamy, and it's inappropriate for Wikipedia to suggest that. So back the NPOV notice goes. Let's have no further unilateral removals until there's a resolution, as it's justified. - Juden (talk) 20:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The only one who has justified anything is you to yourself. Nobody has implied anything - you simply refuse to acknowledge all of the publications in that they attempted to refute. Your use of a tag is a tiring tactic of yours to bully folks into your own POV. A Sniper (talk) 20:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Nonetheless, when someone says there is a dispute, it's pretty clear there is one. Which is why one can't unilaterally remove NPOV notices at Wikipedia. By the way, you failed to note exactly what objection you had to my rewording. I assume it's because I've avoided the POV word "refute"; if you think there can be no substitute, there can be no compromise, and the NPOV notice will become a rather longstanding feature of the article. I'd suggest you think of a substitute wording that you can live with. - Juden (talk) 20:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Evidence vs. Arrogance

Merriam-Webster states that to refute is to prove wrong by argument or evidence <show to be false or erroneous>, or to deny the truth or accuracy of something <refuted the allegations>. Dispute is to engage in argument. From 1860 on, all publications and tracts from the RLDS attempted to prove JSJr. was not a polygamist, and they did so at least until the 1970s with Aleah Koury and Russell Ralston's works. This doesn't mean Juden that they DID prove it, and nobody here is saying they did. They merely denied the accuracy of the Mormon party line of the time and used written publications to try and prove their view by demonstrating what they considered to be false or spurious. To state that the RLDS didn't attempt to refute is revisionism and displays POV. A Sniper (talk) 18:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

You've mixed up two meanings of refute, and want to overlook that the primary meaning of the word "to prove wrong by argument or evidence: show to be false or erroneous" is clearly wrong here. (You can tell that it's the primary meaning because Merriam-Webster lists it first, with a little "1." in front of it.) You want to use a word in its secondary meaning when its primary meaning is wrong. That's bad, confusing, imprecise writing, and in this case also puts the RLDS belief in Wikipedia's voice, which is incompatible with our NPOV policy. The substitute that would seem to be warranted would be "argued against". Oh, yes, also please stop using edit summaries for personal attacks... that's also against policy. - Juden (talk) 20:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I think Juden has the correct position here. Refute is too strong a word and carries an inaccurate spin. I think his compromise wording that I saw earlier is the better phrasing. At one time the RLDS position rejected the polygamous relationships of Joseph Smith; I think most of their historians now think Joseph did have multiple wives. Sniper I would change the wording back to Juden's previous wording. --^StormRider 20:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

"Challenged" is a far superior word since it includes both the meanings of "refute" and "reject". By the way, just because a definition is listed as second in Webster's doesn't mean it is an inferior definition. The order of definitions does NOT imply preference or commonness, it is just an order. For example, look up the word "run" in the American Heritage Dictionary. The first definition is the verb "to move swiftly on foot". Does that mean that it is a superior or "more correct" definition that number 1b, "To move at a fast gallop. Used of a horse."? Of course not. Or is it better than definition 2, "to retreat rapidly"? Once again, of course not. "Refute" does not necessary imply success, but only an attempt. When you read the sentence, "The Klingons ran away," do you deny its truth because it was not done "on foot" but in battle cruisers? Of course not. You accuse us of arrogance, but your only "source" was that the definition of an attempt at disproof was the second definition in the dictionary. That is no evidence whatsoever. (Taivo (talk) 05:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC))

Seems like somebody needs to look up equivocation to me.... 05:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)Uncircumcised Male (talk) 05:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Seems like somebody also needs to look at who called who arrogant. There are also several web pages on "How to read a dictionary" that Taivo might find educational. - Juden (talk) 17:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

(new indent) I still think that Juden's edit of "disputed" is better wording. It accurately portrays what was going on. Even the current wording of "challenged" seems like an attempt to present that there is some scholarly reason to disagree. It has been a few years since I have discussed this issue with CofC historians, but I would be surprised that any of them would dispute the fact that Joseph had plural wives. The only group now that clings to this perception is the small group that is now trying to take the name RLDS (forget their actual name, but they have broken off from the CofC for various reasons). Taivo and Sniper, what do you want readers to understand from your edits? How is that understanding damaged by Juden's edits? --^StormRider 16:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect Storm Rider, this isn't about what the CofC historian now or ten years ago thinks, or what I think, or you or Juden think. It is about what the RLDS church published for 100 years. I still think refute is accurate as that is what they attempted to do. Other than Isaac Sheen's un-official (according to JSIII) view, from 1860 all publications (tracts, booklets, texts, pamphlets) challenged in every way the narrative as published in Utah. Even if, from the standpoint of historians, anti-Mormons and LDS these folks were wrong, it is still what JSIII and his organization believed and attempted to refute. Best, A Sniper (talk) 17:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem, of course, is that your preferred wording did not say they "attempted to refute", but rather that they "refuted". Fortunately we've moved beyond that sadly misleading wording. If you're still confused as to why that wording was inappropriate, I will echo Uncircumcised Male's suggestion that our article on equivocation may help you understand it. - Juden (talk) 17:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, you'll find that the word refute is no longer in the article. And the discussion was between the words refute and reject. My use of the phrase 'attempted to refute' merely reflected history - this is what they did. This is an article about the Origin of Latter Day Saint polygamy - it would be misleading to state that everyone from Nauvoo onward believed Smith taught polygamy and was a polygamist and the article is correct to point out that Smith's widow and son, and his son's organization challenged it, even in court. This doesn't insinuate or infer that they were correct. As an aside, I may be the only one who finds it hilarious that a user called Juden was backing up a user called Uncircumcised Male. A Sniper (talk) 18:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I mentioned that we've moved beyond your preferred wording. Though the current wording could be improved, though you seem to have no interest in doing so, at least it's no longer actively deceptive. You're free to find penis allusions "hilarious", and it's certainly interesting that you do. - Juden (talk) 18:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe hilarious was the wrong choice of words. In any case, your user name has always been a curiosity to me. A Sniper (talk) 21:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I think "attempted to refute" would be acceptable and even better than challenged. It accurately represents the actions of the RLDS group. I have never been in a situation where Juden and I agreed on anything, but this appears to be one of them...I am sure it is as strange for him as it is for me. Regardless, I do think we need to be careful with the wording we use. We might be splitting hairs, but I think this has merit. Humor does not seem to be easily shared with everyone; however, it was a good attempt at levity, Sniper. --^StormRider 19:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

[moved the following from its out-of-place location to here where it was supposed to be originally. Don't know how I managed to put it in the wrong place]

Juden, I've got a PhD in Linguistics and have actually written dictionaries so I understand their structure in great detail and the reasons behind certain orders of definitions versus certain other orders. The reasons are a combination of historical development of meaning and prevalence of use, not on any kind of preferential ranking. Your layman's view of the issue is a bit naive and simplistic. But "challenge" is still the most accurate word here since it includes both "refute" and "reject" in its compass. (Taivo (talk) 18:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC))

Unfortunately for your "point", it was you and not I who suggest that "primary meaning" was a term of preference rather than prevalence. Since this thread alone contains several instance of you misunderstanding (or, alternatively, misrepresenting) rather simple points, I take little solace in your PhD, though of course your opinions on diction still count as much as any other Wikipedian's. - Juden (talk) 18:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

It is indeed most unusual! I think the article would probably best be served if I stepped away from it at present, since much of the opposition for the improved wording seems to stem from the fact that I suggested it or might approve of it. So let me leave this matter for Storm Rider et. al. to handle. - Juden (talk) 20:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Your identity had nothing to do with my resistance to your wording. "Rejected" is too POV for this situation, IMHO and that of Sniper's. We also reacted to your unfounded insistence that "refute" necessarily implies success. (Actually, it is unusual for Sniper and myself to be on the same side of an issue as well.) The current wording ("challenged") seems to be an acceptable wording that entails both of the disputed words. (Taivo (talk) 20:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC))

Thank you Taivo. I think the whole issue has now been talked to death. Finding consensus requires we all take a step backwards. Everything began with the issue of refute vs. reject, and I agree with Taivo that challenge adequately covers both terms. It is great that old adversaries are working together. As continuing editors I'd think we agree that what we seek is the most accurate, source-supplied NPOV information in the article as is possible, which isn't easy coming from editors with varied backgrounds. At least we're all here, still labouring. Best, A Sniper (talk) 20:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)