Talk:Joseph Smith/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

Erroneous statements

Thank you Cabe, that's a small start. I'll go over just a few of the other erroneous statements in the article...as an example of what I'm talking about concerning the overall poor quality of the article:

"With his family, he took part in religious folk magic". Hmm, I don't see that written anywhere in Church literature. Sounds like a fabrication to me. What's more the link of "religious folk magic" just points to a WP article about "Folk religion" which makes no mention of the word "magic". As Rider mentions above "magic" is commonly seen as close to or the same thing as sorcerery. The Holy Bible's New Testament denounces sorcerers and sorcereries to be of Satan. Seems as though this Bushman author is not so neutral after all...

another bad sentence: "both his parents and his maternal grandfather had *mystical* visions...". Yea, this is another play on words. The word "mystical" in most societies is held in close proximity to those who practice magic and those who will read your palm and tell you your future for money. It is just an innapropriate word that is used in a calculated way to discredit what they said was their personal revelations from God. Once again, this description is absent from Church manuscripts and personal journals of the members of the Church.

Anonymous poster, I'm sorry I don't know what you're referring to when you say "He conned the gullible into believing he could find buried treasure, swore he could see letters on gold plates by looking at a stone in his hat, and lied repeatedly to his wife about his additional "wives," a couple of whom were fourteen." Those must have all been made-up by someone's imagination. I don't find those statements anywhere. He did translate the plates by way of what are called the "Urim and Thummim" which he said were prepared by the hand of the Lord for this purpose. But he didn't say the stones were in any hat, and he never used them to try to find "treasure". The plates already had characters on them but it was in a language nobody there could read. The plural marriage thing is true, and by Joseph's own account 'the commandment by God to practice it was one of the most unwanted and difficult things he ever had to do.' He said this was in fullfillment of the prophecy by ancient prophets that "in the last days there shall be a restoration of all things". This would include what Mormons believe the Lord commanded ancient prophets to do for His own purposes which it is speculated that it was to multiply the righteous people in the earth, especially when war killed off many men. In any account the message from Joseph on the subject is very clear: it was a grievous and sore trial/test that many did not make it through. In my opinion it put undue tensions on his personal marriage at a time when all a normal men would have wanted in such a scene of mob violence, hatred, tensions, and responsibility for the well-being of thousands of people would have been to escape or to have peace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve200255 (talk • contribs) 05:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Steve200255, there are at least six witnesses to the translation of the Book of Mormon that reported Smith putting his seeing stone, not urim..., in his hat and "dictating" the scripture, including his wife and some of the scribes. According to the new testament scriptures and documented 1-3rd century christian writers, the bible as we have it now is the complete and final word of God, more historically accurate than any other book. Even though the LDS claims to the contrary, this places Mormonism and Jospeh Smith beyond the realm of Christianity. --Alan355 (talk) 21:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Does that include the Apocrypha or not? I keep forgetting what is the "real" Christian Bible. Historically accurate to boot and not a book of faith? Anyone else historically claim Jesus raised from the dead? It would be best not to overstate anyone's case for "the truth". --^StormRider 22:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts, but I'm not expressing hate just educated reason, no, not including the apocrypha, those books would be the 1-3rd century equivalent of a Billy Graham book at best and Da Vinci Code at worst. Educated research has pretty much cemented that those books have questionable authorship, which removed the books from the discussion early on. There has been serious and educated thought and research put into the accuracy and preserves the books that are "god breathed" and which are not, we have documented evidence from the early christians stating that the rule of thumb was books and letters from the apostles and close companions, we know that Peter read Paul's letters as copied by recipient churches and he supported Pauls teaching, the Bible encourages intellectual scrutiny of the scriptures to identify false teachings and false prophets as they will arise. The old testament we use today consists of all the same contents as Josephus recorded. There are just no grounds for what Joseph Smith claims in the realm of Christianity, Christ himself stated he was here to make a new covenant, reason states that if he was divine as he claims, that it would make no sense to come but hide all the real truths till 1800 yrs later. Non-mormon research just doesn't show how or where this Great Apostasy could have occured. Please study 1-3rd century christianity to learn of the individuals and their motives and methods to have a better understanding of the point of view. Ezra Taft Benson stated that Mormonism would never be for those who cared about manuscript evidence or for the intellectual or the rich. Just as there are plenty of good hearted Mormons who really believe in Smith, there are many others who have done honest research in the bible, nothing to do with anti-mormon stuff, and don't believe that the God of the Bible would create a secret message on gold plates hundreds of years after Jesus and then take them away so noone can see the evidence. Jesus showed Thomas the holes in his hands because his own apostle doubted, the current nonexistance of the plates from which the Book of Mormon came from just isn't characteristic of the God described in the Bible. --Alan355 (talk) 18:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Um, Alan355, how can you declare the Apocrypha "of questionable authorship" and accept the rest of the Bible? You do realize that there is no historical Ruth, right? You do accept that "Educated research" has long concluded there is no concrete authorship to ANY book in the Gospel, right? Or that "educated research" has pretty firmly established that Matthew and Luke are compilations formed by combining Mark and the Q document? Why would "Educated research" throw out the Apocrypha for unknown authorship, but keep the Book of Matthew? And how apocryphal are we talking here? There are books that are only slightly apocryphal, like the Book of Tobit which was accepted into the Catholic canon in 397 and into the Orthodox canon in 1546? Or 1 Esdras which is only canon in the Eastern Orthodox church? As for the accuracy of the Bible, you havn't seen the Skeptic's Annotated Bible, have you? We are on the internet people, do some research before you speak. That being said, this is for discussion of the article, not random Christian beliefs. Please keep it about the article. Padillah (talk) 19:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Padillah, thank you for your thoughts, but please don't mistake brevity for ignorance, without a signed photo stapled to the front of an original MS all authorship is somewhat questionable. This doesn't change the fact that there are 27 books in common with minimal MS variants and universal acceptance. I was referring to the impressions of the 1-3rd century christains opinions concerning the origin of said NT, 20 of which had documented universal acceptance by the mid 2nd century. Reference scholar Dr. Kurt Aland, and mormon scholar Richard Lloyd Anderson, and Joel Groat among others. As to the rest of my statement it was an explanation and I apologize, I will keep all further posts regarding this article.--Alan355 (talk) 21:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Read here some of what the official "Church History" says that Joseph Smith Jr. said about his own experiences. It contrasts heavily with what Quinn and Bushmen and other sources used here say:

Joseph Smith History (extracts from the history of Joseph Smith, The Prophet. History of the Church, Vol. 1, Chapters 1-5)

Can be found online here: http://scriptures.lds.org/js_h/1

Corrections to the Wikipedia article both in wording and in substance:

Concerning the obtaining of the record written on gold plates and the seer stones. These are key sentences and phrases applicable to this discussion throughout the reference. After Joseph was visited and ministered to by a messenger (who called himself Moroni sent down from the presence of the Lord, and who was the same being who had sealed up the said record during his own mortal life and buried it for protection from the apostacized and the other wicked) about the whole night he felt exhausted and had little strength left to go about his daily chores. From this setup we read: Joseph Smith History 1:48-54 " I shortly after arose from my bed, and as usual, went to the necessary labors of the day; but, in attempting to work as at other times, I found my strength so exhausted as to render me entirely unable. My father, who was laboring along with me, discovered something to be wrong with me, and told me to go home. I started with the intention of going to the house; but, in attempting to cross the fence out of the field where we were, my strength entirely failed me, and I fell helpless on the ground, and for a time was quite unconscious of anything. The first thing that I can recollect was a voice speaking unto me, calling me by name. I looked up, and beheld the same messenger standing over my head, surrounded by light as before. He then again related unto me all that he had related to me the previous night, and commanded me to go to my father and tell him of the vision and commandments which I had received. I obeyed..."

and then we read "convenient to the village of manchester, Ontario country, New York, stands a hill of considerable size, and the most elevated of any in the neighborhood. On the west side of thie hill, not far from the top, under a stone of considerable size, lay the plates, deposited in a stone box..." "...having removed the earth, I obtained a lever, which I got fixed under the edge of the stone, and with a little exertion raised it up. I looked in, and there indeed did I behold the plates, the Urim and Thummim, and the breasplate, as stated by the messenger. The box in which they lay was formed by laying stones together in some kind of cement. In the bottom of the box were laid two stones crossways of the box, and on these stones lay the plates and the other things with them."

Then "I made an attempt to take them out, but was forbidden by the messenger, and was again informed that the time for brigning them forth had not yet arrived, neither would it, until four years from that time; but he told me that I should come to that place precisely in one year from that time, and that he would there meet with me, and that I should continue to do so until the time should come for obtaining the plates. Accordingly, as I had been commanded, I went at the end of each year, and at each time I found the same messenger there, and received instruction and intelligence from him at each of our interviews, respecting what the Lord was going to do, and how and in what manner his kingdom was to be conducted in the last days."

Do you see any contradictions in either tone or in fact regarding what these authors said and what you read here? Joseph said 'I was forbidden to take out the plates'. This is very different from the violent imagery 'struck down with force'. I ask that this be corrected in the article.

In other parts of "Joseph Smith--History" it says that under difficult financial times he became employed by a man who mined silver. This is in stark contrast to "treasure-digging". I wonder what that means anyway...treasure-digging. Does Quinn think Joseph was trying to find a pirate's buried treasure? Hahaha, wow I don't know who could believe anything Quinn says just from reading that statement alone. Obviously the object in mind for the author Quinn is to get the reader to believe that Joseph Smith Jr. was some guy fascinated with and obsessive about finding treasure by way of digging, thereby introducing the idea that Joseph may have fabricated the whole Book of Mormon recorded on golden plates. Typical anti-mormon word play. I request that the article read what is recorded in the said reference that Joseph Smith became employed by a silver mining company, briefly, and that he did so only because there was no other employment available to him. That's what he said in his own journal.

I have issue with another word used in the article near the beginning "cosmology". This term is defined as the study of the universe. I don't think this is an appropriate term because the word is used in science and not in religion. In fact, the word makes a reader think of the word "astrology" which is connected with "mystical" and "metaphysical" and "magic" and "fortune telling" which, as mentioned is popularly associated with demonology. Again, a calculated word placed to get a reader to discredit the man. I ask that it be removed. Just one more proof of the slant of this article.

another bad phrase: "That summer, after the Nauvoo Expositor criticized his power and new doctrines, such as plural marriage, Smith and the Nauvoo city council ordered the destruction of the newspaper as a nuisance." This omits critical information, thereby leading a reader to believe Smith was a tyrannical ruler. I ask that a more correct and appropriate description of the scene substitute what is currently in the article with something from a source like this:

"...A posse had come for Joseph and Hyrum that morning warning that the governor had promised to garrison troops in Nauvoo until the brothers submitted to arrest. 6 The brethren were told that the people of Nauvoo feared what the troops might do. A discussion ensued. At its end, Hyrum said, “Let us go back and give ourselves up, and see the thing out. On the morning of Tuesday, June 25, events moved rapidly. Joseph and Hyrum, charged with riot for the June 10 destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor press, surrendered themselves to Constable Davis Bettisworth in Carthage despite being acquitted earlier on related charges. Nauvoo City Council members, feeling that the press threatened their lives and liberties by inciting mob violence against them, had ruled, within the rights they felt were granted by the Nauvoo Charter, that the newspaper was a public nuisance. As directed by the city council, the Prophet, acting as mayor, had then ordered the marshal to destroy the press. The whole countryside was in a state of confusion. Mormons feared and distrusted their enemies, and their enemies feared the power of the Mormons if provoked. Rumors bred rumors. Armed men practiced military drills everywhere. Day after day men crossed and recrossed the Mississippi River from Missouri as attacks upon Nauvoo were planned and canceled" ("Martyrdom at Carthage", Reed Blake, Ensign, June 1994)

As I have just proven this WP article is completely one-sided. Someone mentioned the value of a "fair and balanced" approach using all sides? I just proved this article is completely one-sided, and not in favor of what the historical figures wrote about themselves. I would have thought this should have raised a red flag to everyone. Glad I'm bringing it up now then.

Alanyst said that we should seek to reflect all viewpoints to give balance. Bfizz remarked that the article is not written from "a believing perspective". That's just the point, its entirely written from "a dis-believing perspective". All one-sided, calculated to discredit Joseph Smith Jr. as a person, as a prophet, and as a good man. Not only that, it seeks to do the same to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints. It's aim is to leave a bad taste in the reader's mouth about the prophet and the church. So you're going to have to insert my suggestions into the article to start to give the article a more balanced feel. Someone said that "Bushman can't be credibly called an anti-mormon". I beg to differ. I don't care what the man is called, his views and incorrect historical accounts are exactly in line with all anti-mormon literature. Bushman may be a Mormon himself, but all the biggest anti-mormons have been or think they still are. I have come across individuals who desperately wanted to join the church for the express reason of being in a position to have more clout to renounce the Church. That's how dedicated some anti-mormons are. Bushman is anything but neutral.

That's all for now, that's just a start. This lengthy post was all neccessary to shed some new light on the subject. I would like the requested actions to be taken though to give the article more balance from the opposing viewpoints. Steve200255 (talk) 04:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Steve, first off, no one is going to read anything as long as the rant you posted above. You need to be concise and to the point. We are all volunteers here and we should respect other peoples time. Second, you need to understand, you may well believe the church, but there are some who don't. You have every right to believe in your heart that the prophet spoke words of God, but you must realize the pragmatism of enforcing that belief on others. You also need to understand that the Church has a point of view, they are not neutral in their defense of their own dogma. Just because the Church didn't say it doesn't mean it's not true. Heck, how much have you heard about Brigham Young's Adam-God theory? Or the Mountain Meadows massacre? Or the war against the United States government? All due respect but you have got to realize that the Church is slanted... towards the Church. The argument you are presenting is akin to asking us to believe Van der Sloot didn't do it because the police asked him and he said "no", would he lie to the police? If you have individual resource that can be examined please bring them forward (on a point by point basis) but you insult the intelligence of everyone here when you bring up Church documents in a manner indicating we didn't think of those already. Do you really think we missed something as big as the entire Mormon doctrine? Padillah (talk) 15:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Padillah you're absolutely right about the size of that post. I guess I thought the people on here lacked information and so I went overboard. Won't happen again. Also, I apologize if I offended or insulted anyone, but it seems that my people are the only ones being attacked here. Some here may claim that I'm talking from an opinionated standpoint but that in and of itself is a big claim to make. Is it not? Just because I believe in the doctrine doesn't alienate me from this discussion. Just because I have an opinion doesn't make my statements opinionated. I speak from a factual standpoint. If you want to say I'm talking in a biased way you're just going to have to give some examples. I'm talking about real history here. To claim that the Church is slanted has never been proven in any way. In theory, as you say, the Church has an incentive to slant towards itself with biased edited histories, but you have no way of proving that. I'm sorry, but you're making a huge blanket statement. You need to support that argument with facts. If you want to claim that no neutral or factual information about LDS church history can come from the LDS church or its members, that it's impossible then you're automatically plunging yourself into the literature of anti-mormon people. They dominate that market in hordes. They never call themselves anti-mormon, of course, just as you wouldn't call yourself anti-mormon. SOME of these people individualy might not hate the church but all their sources can only come from one of two places: The Church/members, or those who only heard bad stuff about the church from anti-mormon people. Back then, because of this, there weren't any neutral people. And, unfortunately they are the only sources. So this idea of an ideal neutral source, as you define it, is a fallacy. Sure I know all about the Brigham Young Adam/God doctrine and the Meadow Mountains Massacre and the supposed insurrection against the United States. You must think that I'm an idiot not knowing about this stuff while being a member. Padillah, if you want to correct people on insulting others it would be good not to insult them in your reply. Accusing me of not being able to think for myself, one who is fooled by his church, an ignorant person. That's quite an insult to my intelligence. But I'm not suprised when you read what you read thinking it is neutral material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve200255 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Steve, you need to read WP:RS to understand what constitutes a reliable source here at Wikipedia. (By the way, you can sign your posts with four tildes.)--John Foxe (talk) 19:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

ok, the rules say: "cannot be published by the church or its members" for a source to be reliable. This means that all references attributable to Richard Bushman must be deleted. Steve200255 (talk) 20:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Steve, the rule isn't "Cannot be published by the Church but you can't be as intelligent as you claim and still think the Church is perfectly honest and forthright in all it's dealings. If nothing else you must admit a slant towards believing Joseph Smith Jr.'s every word with little or no basis in reality. Understand that if you deny this you deny the Church, you either believe the Church and believe that Joseph Smith Jr. was a prophet or you don't. There is no documentation, no picture of the angel Moroni, no footprints in the grass, no "burning bush". There is only testimony of the three, testimony of the eight, and testimony of the Prophet. And you'll forgive the implication but, people can lie. Do I mean to bring the Prophet under attack? No, absolutely not. I mean to exist in the real world with knowledge of the evils of man. The Church teaches you to question, even to question the Prophet, that is all we are doing. The disdain for others, that don't believe as you do, is palpable in your posts. If you re-read my post I never claimed you had not heard of the situations I listed. Indeed, I asked how much you had heard, implying that you have heard at least a little. So your offense at thinking a thing that was, in point of fact, the opposite of what I had presented leaves me wondering what I'm supposed to think. I never intended to insult you, I was only trying to get to a point that you would view the Church from a "worldly" point of view. This may not be desirable to you, but it must be done to render a neutral point of view. Padillah (talk) 21:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Steve200255, this can be a calm discussion instead of a contentious argument, but we need your cooperation for that to happen. You can help be a peacemaker by taking others' comments in good faith, such as John Foxe's suggestion to review the rules about reliable sources. Your quote of what the rules "say" is clearly not a real quote, and is suggestive of an effort to make a rhetorical point instead of stating your position outright. Why not actually follow the link, read the policy, and ask yourself how it applies to the sources used (and not used) for this article? Then tell us your conclusions and we can discuss them collegially.

Above, you seem to have argued that sources that aren't in line with the official LDS history, or that cover aspects of Joseph Smith's life that the LDS history doesn't cover, are inherently anti-Mormon. Is that a fair characterization of your stance? It is curious to me that you cast Richard Bushman into the "anti-Mormon" crowd, since a search at lds.org shows that he's been published and/or quoted in LDS Church publications various times over the past few decades—hardly the treatment one would expect for the writings of an "anti-Mormon"—and he seems to be generally regarded as both an excellent historian and a devout Latter-day Saint. Perhaps some of the sources are not as biased against Mormonism as you assume? alanyst ^/talk/ 21:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey Steve, You may notice that your concise, respectful, and well thought out input is quickly attacked as 'Mormon Point of View." That is the trend here on the article. Notice too that while you did not mention any specific individuals, merely the content and its bias, that you are quickly attacked for being disrespectful and ranting. Methinks the cynics doth protest too much. Seems you hit a sensitive nerve. I too tried to play by the rules in pointing out the glaring bias in the article but quickly gave up. The group dynamic here is pretty well entrenched and closed. Case in point, notice Padillah's comment that, "...you can't be as intelligent as you claim and still think the Church is perfectly honest and forthright in all it's dealings." Hmmm, you can't? So contributors must be apostate or at least hesitant in their beliefs? I don't think I've read anythng more cynical or ridiculous. I guess assuming good faith applies to everyone unless they are Mormons, their leaders, or their Church.

And as to Foxe's complaints about reliable source, here that means any reliable source that does not portray Joseph Smith in a good light. What it is supposed to mean is the source, the text, and the publisher must be reliable. Simply saying Joseph Smith is unreliable because you aren't LDS (or quoting from mostly unreliable and biased sources of skeptics who don't believe him either) is the worst bias and unfair. Yes, they'll argue Bushman but only use his writings which portray Joseph negatively. Remember, Bushman set out to identify Smith's normal human flaws because he was tired of the these were unfairly portrayed by other Smith critics. And still he concludes his writings with some beautiful insights into the incredibly principled and brave man Smith was, all of which is conveniently absent here.

If Brodie (a lady with serious personal issues who was in love with Thomas Jefferson) is reliable, Smith is reliable. Smith's writings, in context, are reliable. And the publishers (usually the Church) would only be argued as unreliable by enemies or biased cynics of Joseph Smith. So Joseph is a reliable source, his writings and history are reliable, and the publishers are reliable. It is for Foxe to prove (not merely state POV) otherwise, and he isn't doing a very convincing job especially given his stated bias against the LDS Church. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.180.110.164 (talk) 14:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I better run, I'm on a hiatus from posting because I was taking too much flack and found the process of contributing a pointless waste of time. I remain here, sitting under my troll-bridge.

Word of advice, spend your nights with your family. Leave this article to the controllers of the article, remembering that time is on the side of truth. The dogs may bark, but the caravan rolls on.

199.60.41.15 (talk) 02:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

@173.180.110.164 - You'll also notice that I pointed out the Church encourages you to question, it was Joseph Smith's questioning of then current religions that led to his finding the plates and establishing the religion. Questioning is not an apostasy. There's a world of space between "blind faith" and apostasy and I hope you allow for that space in your world view.

As for Joseph Smith being unreliable, no one here is saying any such thing. We are quoting the rules of Wikipedia for you to read, which you are not doing. No one is saying Joseph Smith is unreliable, we are saying he's Joseph Smith. Should you find your way clear to read the policies of WP you'll find that Wikipedia requires we pull information from secondary sources, sources that are not the creators of said information. Joseph Smith does not qualify as a Reliable Source for the article on Joseph Smith because he IS Joseph Smith, not because he's unreliable. Notice, I said "he does not qualify" not "he's unreliable". Every person on this talk page that has brought up Reliable Sources has brought them up in reference to this policy, not to besmirch Joseph Smith. There are much better venues for decrying the name of the Prophet than a Wikipedia talk page.

I've got a challenge, If Bushman is the one you want to concentrate on then fine. He's been accepted as a Reliable Source so let's use him. Find a statement from Bushman you feel should be in the article. Give us a citation for the statement and where you think it fits into the article. Rather than try to essentially convert us to Mormonism (which is funny from my point of view) how about you provide us proof that a statement belongs in the article? Padillah (talk) 19:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

This is what I have gleaned from reading this: Steve has valid concerns about the article. We need to address those concerns. Some of his concerns are not valid - but we should extend the courtesy of a meaningful explanation. Foxe needs to elaborate on what he thinks was/is not a reliable source regarding Steve's comment. Steve and Padillah should probably not engage eachother on whether or not Joseph/The Church 's teaching were correct. Let us talk about how to make the article better in a NPOV kind of way. Thanks. --Suplemental (talk) 19:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Then I have seriously misrepresented myself. I never meant to engage anyone on the veracity of the Church's teachings. And I most certainly never meant to question the teachings of the Prophet beyond the pragmatics of Wikipedia policy. My apologies if it appeared that I was doing anything other than that. Padillah (talk) 20:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:RS says (among other things):

• "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible."
• "Material such as an article or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable. If the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses, generally it has been at least preliminarily vetted by one or more other scholars."
• Questionable sources are (among other things) those that are "promotional in nature."

Therefore, Joseph Smith's own writings are of marginal importance as Wikipedia sources, far less acceptable than those of scholarly secondary authors, for instance, his biographers Bushman and Brodie. Material from an apologetic website, such as that of the Foundation for Apologetic Information & Research, is unacceptable for two reasons: it is promotional, and its publications have not been vetted in peer-reviewed publications. (Note that an article in the Journal of Mormon History is, by contrast, a reliable source by Wikipedia standards because its articles have been vetted by scholars.)--John Foxe (talk) 21:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Padillah, apology fairly accepted. The problem is what was revealed in your statement, "You can't be as intelligent as you claim and still think the Church is perfectly honest and forthright in all it's dealings." See it reveals a clear bias against the LDS Church and its integrity. I don't fault you for holding such an opinion. That's your right. But the truth is either that the LDS Church is honest in its dealings, or it's not. But when you speak from such a biased position it taints every contribution you make to this article as suspect. Wikipedia says we should assume good faith, but if I meet a guy on the street carrying a sign reading 'Joseph Smith is a Liar,' don't expect me to put any money in his jar. Please remove yourself from contributing until you can approach the article more fair-mindedly or with a lot less bias. 173.180.110.164 (talk) 01:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

I apologize to the others here but since there is no user talk page I can take this to it'll have to gum up this page for a little while longer. Do you not understand that the Church believes that the Church is the One True Church? As such it firmly believes that Joseph Smith was a Prophet of Heavenly Father. How can you not see the bias inherent in that system? Look how long it took for the Church to distance itself from the Adam-God theory. They didn't have the ability to contradict their prophet until years after his death. You act as though incidents like the Salamander cover-up never happened. Just because the letter was a fake doesn't mean the Church didn't try to cover it up. But none of those things means the teachings of the Church are wrong. You appear to be confusing the people in the Church with the doctrine and dogma of the Church. People can be fallible and yet the teachings of Jesus Christ still be true. How dare you impugn my belief in the Church because of my ability to separate the teachings from the faults of the human entities that run the Church. You don't know me and you have no idea what I believe. Please if you need clarification, ask, don't assume. That being said I will contribute exactly as much as I feel warranted. It is you that needs to remove the beam from thine own eye first. Until you have the ability to see the Church through a critical eye, your contributions will be decidedly biased and of no use here. And please understand when I say the next time you impugn my belief system I will consider it a personal attack. Padillah (talk) 11:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Suplemental's assessment and suggestions. This entire section for me was tl;dr. Suplemental said, "Steve has valid concerns about the article. We need to address those concerns." Can we please create talk page headings or subheadings for each concern so as to make it easy to discuss and resolve each one? ...comments? ~BFizz 03:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Suplemental's direction to go from here. I'll respond to a few comments briefly. First, I never meant to sound or be contentious here, just trying to get a fair academic-type representation of the man called Joseph Smith Jr.. That's all I want or expect out of a public forum. To say that I'm expecting people to believe in Joseph Smith to be a prophet is simply not true. I've only talked about what are facts and who can be relied upon to deliver those facts--reliable sources in other words. In the eyes of the world and WP we must deliver these facts by way of secondary sources whenever possible, so as to prevent the claim that someone is lying to us out of their own bias and self-seeking interest. Our subject in this WP article is unique in several ways in that biases could be deemed to be just as strong against the man as they were for the man. Proof of this lies in the universally recognized incessant mob violence against him on the one hand, and those who gave up all they possess to follow him on the other. So the burden of the proof of a NPOV source is significant, in the eyes of the world. Is my logic ok so far? I will go a step further and postulate that those who were in those mobs, at the time, were not quiet in their opinions given the knowledge that mobs do not form unless there is outspoken public disdain. So now we have proof of regular and intense outspoken loud public disdain against the man called Joseph Smith Jr.. Popular opinion is a seed bed for bringing others onboard. So non-witnesses and total strangers now have a very strong perception that the man called Joseph the Prophet is of the worst sort of humanity on earth. Even before they come accross him they hate him. Is it any wonder that they found evil in the man looking through those kinds of lenses? Have you ever known someone to unfairly judge another person just because they already hated them? Is anyone here getting the notion that finding a neutral second source will be difficult?

Given all this we need to discuss what seems most easy to me to resolve here: what to do whenever Joseph Smith had a lone experience. Take, for example, the multiple visitations of the angel Moroni to Joseph. From a WP requirement and from an entirely skeptical perspective we need to get a second witness to speak up about it. The problem is there is no second witness. What do we do then? If you read any of my really long post above you will find a stark contrast between what Joseph Smith himself said (found in preserved journals and manuscripts from the time) and what others say happened who were never there (the current WP article). Steve200255 (talk) 06:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Steve200255, this is a very good point, I would think the best way handled that would be to add the word “claimed” for all lone experiences. This is a neutral word so as to indicate it isn’t a documented fact but a possibility. Just because no one is around when you hit a hole in one doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.--Alan355 (talk) 21:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Very astute and cogent presentation. And a fine representation of the predicament we find ourselves in. May I add, this predicament is exacerbated by the feeling that presenting Joseph Smith in a positive light is to present his teachings in a positive light and that then looks like proselytizing. We need to divorce ourselves of the impression that speaking well of the man is to support the man's beliefs. You can praise Nixon for establishing the EPA, OSHA and the Council on Environmental Quality yet still understand the man resigned due to scandal. This is the point of view we must take with Joseph Smith Jr. present the man as he was, bad and good, and let neither detract from the whole. As for his personal experiences we can only present them as personal experiences that Smith said he had. I personally don't believe they need special handling as long as they are presented as Smith's portrayal of a personal experience. We should be careful not to present them as objective anecdotes rather as subjective stories. (FWIW, I had to go with Nixon to avoid Godwin's Law) Padillah (talk) 12:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

By the way, another statement has been overlooked. If the attitude of "anything that isn't for the Mormon church is against it" is assumed to be a guiding principle, this article will never satisfy the strong adherents of the church. That's because a truly neutral page will be seen as "not for the church" and thus be termed anti-mormon. This article is actually not that unusual, except for the number of strong-willed people it tends to attract: in other words, it's a simple case of conflict of interest and verifiability policy that prevents us from using something from Joseph Smith himself as a reliable source. It's worth keeping in mind that WP:V and WP:RS are two of the 5 pillars that Wikipedia is organized around. This article is no exception to those principles, no matter how strongly people may feel about ensuring a specific version of The Truth is portrayed. tedder (talk) 12:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for coming out and calling us "whin[ers]" again, Tedder. Your statement that, "This article will never satisfy the strong adherents of the church," clearly reveals a prejudiced and unfair bias. "Never?" Did you really mean that? Do you really believe that? I think you will find the LDS people quite fair-minded. What you will also find is we are generally a highly-educated people who are smart enough to recognize when something is not right. But since you're in charge around here, I'll climb back under my "troll" (your word not mine) bridge now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.180.110.164 (talk) 14:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I would like to give my bit in this:

Overly, I think the non-Mormons in this article ought to get their facts right. Nobody is saying that anything that is "not mormon" is "Anti-mormon" in all due to respect. However, what you fail to understand is that there is a difference between something which is "not mormon" and "anti-mormon" in nature. My definition of "anti-mormonism" is "Something that condemns, attempts to crsuh, minimize, hold back, or openly attack the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints." also, my view of "neutral" is "Something which upholds never viewpoint and irrespectively has no fundamental interests or alliances with the subject in question.". Now, in the case of this page. I do not view it as neutral to the LDS View. The page is written in an incredibly negative prose + structure. This is done by a) Selection of mostly negative factors and minimization + downplay of positive ones. Some of these negative factors are established by self created author conclusions/judgements, synthesis. If a factor or source is incredibly critical or skepitcal to the LDS movement, then it is viewed as "neutral" in the sense. It is allowed. If a factor is positive in any way towards the LDS Movement, it is "bias", "ideological", "POV", etc. It is not allowed. It is strange how this source quotes a bomb of anti-mormon books written by writers with deep prejudices against the church. Yet pro-LDS sources are not allowed, their viewpoint is not "mainstream" either, but is the anti-mormon view mainstream? It certainly varies from the neutral viewpoint on the church, which is "I dont care". But also, the selection of negative facts is accompanied by a highly negative presentation, prose and style of writing. It is "spin", it is damaging, and I am incredibly worried about the effects that this is having on LDS readers. I sweat as it may strip away their faith like flesh being cut by a rusty knife, because the average reader does not know the backtrack behind the venomous and adbominable lies and manipulative tricks in the framework of this page. Because the authors who sat and built this article, intended to have it like this. That's why they will not have anyone change it. They have took control of this page, and many others. If you change it, they revert you. You revert back, they report you. This is supposed to be the encyclopedia to which anyone can edit, but this is the prime of authoritarian fascism within all its glory. To suggest we are "irrelevant" and "insignificant" is painful, unfair, and dark. It simply cannot go on like this. If I moan, people tell me to "change it myself", but how can I when every single attempt is reverted without question? Just what can be done? For no other religious page is written in such a rude, critical, abrupt and skeptical manner, and are they bias towards that particular subject? Are Mainstream proper encyclopedias bias too? Can you possibly justify these differences? Routerone (talk) 15:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Routerone, please be careful with your rhetoric, using a phrase abominable lies and manipulative tricks is very similar to what you seem upset that the LDS and Smith are accused of. Please give specific changes you would like made. This article is not an envangelism tool it is an intellectual compilation of documented material about Smith’s life. --Alan355 (talk) 21:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

All due respect to those complaining about how they've been treated but, is there a citable source in our future? I've not been on this page for very long and I've been the subject of personal attacks and had my beliefs called into question. How about we stop talking about editors and start talking about edits? Now, having said that, please understand that there is no impetus for accepting primary source material except in special circumstances and there is a difference between a citation and a belief system. That said, I implore someone (I don't care who) to propose an edit and cite it's source so we can improve the article. Padillah (talk) 17:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Padillah, I agree! Routerone, you say that "It is strange how this source quotes a bomb of anti-mormon books written by writers with deep prejudices against the church." Can you specify a few specific examples of where you feel anti-mormon sources are used unfairly? And please, keep it brief. Thanks. Same goes for Steve, Canadiandy, and anyone else who has raised inspecific issues in this discussion. ...comments? ~BFizz 01:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I would be happy just once to hear someone say the following;

"Hey Canadiandy. You, Steve, and Routerone have some very valid concerns. The fact that you and so many other LDS people (FAIRLDS, Steve, Routerone, yourself...) are so offended by this particular article makes me think maybe we should seriously look into it. I see how heavily this article draws from research collected by old school historians with an axe to grind or with no sensitivity to your faith as a formal religion. You're right, most (if not all)other religions are afforded a greater respect and tolerance than seems to have been here historically. I see that you are not merely "Whin[ing]" but are expressing frustration with the original tenor and cynical direction this article's framework was originally built on. I see that it is not merely a few small details that can be ironed out over a short period of time but an entire rethinking of the article that is likely needed. I also understand fully why you might feel so disenfranchised by the process. So, seeing we need to start hacking at the roots and not merely the leaves of the problem, what do you and any neutral researchers suggest we might do?"

As opposed to the now cliche rebuttals;

1. Quit whining. 2. Suggest a change (which we will belabor for weeks or simply revert) or shut up. 3. Joseph Smith is not a reliable source, his enemies are reliable because they are secondary while those who liked Smith don't count as they will obviously be biased. 4. Don't be so rude, remember assume good faith (even if it from those who are rudely hostile towards your own faith). 5. Why are you complaining, COgden is LDS and he doesn't have a problem with it. 6. We use Bushman and he's LDS (even though we only use the 'bad' parts).

The biggest waste of time would be to bury our heads in the sand and pretend that this is really close to a "Good Article" and we'll fix this by arguing over the word 'supernatural.' We need a huge paradigm shift or we'll continue on in this bizarre and cyclical Catch 22.

My serious proposal is that we revert back to , and begin again. It was much shorter, more concise, and much less biased. Seems pretty fairly neutral from where I stand. 173.180.110.164 (talk) 03:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

So you want us to say I see that you are not merely "Whin[ing]" but are expressing frustration with the original tenor and cynical direction this article's framework was originally built on. But instead of mentioning specific examples of why this is the case, you simply assert that it is (which indeed sounds like whining). So convince me. Show me concrete examples of the article's "cynical direction", and then I will aid you in correcting the issue. ...comments? ~BFizz 04:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, BFizz, randomly I found the following;

"During the next four years, Smith made annual visits to Cumorah, only to return without the plates because he claimed that he had not brought with him the "right person" required by the angel."

Am I the only one who can see the cynicism dripping in this one? The phraseology, "only to return without" as opposed to "returning each time without" lends negative commentary. And if it is him claiming it, why the need to put the "right person" in quotation marks. This lends the tone that we have to question anything Smith says directly even when it is already qualified with the phrase "he claimed."

I think if you really deconstruct this thing neutrally it will become quite apparent this is an unfairly designed and written article as it stands. So now, will you please carry through with your promise and aid us in a fresh start?

Who else is willing to stay on if we start from a do over with the original article (29 Aug 2003) as the starting point?

173.180.110.164 (talk) 06:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

Padillah has remedied the scare quotes. I'm still not convinced that there is a huge, deep, underlying problem with the article. I do not have the time to "hack at the roots" of a problem that I do not believe exists. But I am more than willing to help with the "leaves". ...comments? ~BFizz 18:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break, part 2

Whether or not we are doing a fresh start: about the specific example I opened up in my last post...does anyone have any ideas about how to proceed? I would really like discussion on this. Canadiandy, your question assumes we have already accepted the authors Quinn and Bushman as reliable authors who used reliable second sources in their works. As you can read above, there is another account that says Smith said no such things. So lets first establish who can reliably speak for Joseph's lone experiences. Does this sound like a good way to go forward? Please, my question is repeated a third time. What does the community say on this topic? Steve200255 (talk) 07:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

A faith-promoting article about Joseph Smith is not being checked by skeptics like me—I think I'm about the only non-Mormon who regularly contributes here—but by Wikipedia rules that privilege scholarly, peer-reviewed, secondary material published by "well-regarded academic presses" over primary sources interpreted by apologetic organizations. In other words, Brodie, Bushman, Quinn, Shipps, and Vogel satisfy the ground rules established by Wikipedia; Joseph Smith—History and the FAIR website do not.

Although your complaint ("whining," if you like) seems directed against skeptical editors and anti-Mormon sources, in fact, frustration at your inability to appreciably revise a thoroughly researched academic article (and this one matches both in historical accuracy and literary quality any contained in a paper encyclopedia) into a faith-promoting one ultimately arises from the nature of Wikipedia itself.--John Foxe (talk) 09:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

@Foxe, that was the most circumlocutious answer I think I've ever read. Just tell him that, as is the case with any private conversation or belief all we are allowed to report is that "Joseph Smith claims to have..." We have to keep the primary sources in context. We have to keep the reader aware of the fact that there is no one to back up these claims. But they are so central to the history of Joseph Smith we cannot leave them out. By the same token, if we have reliable accounts of Joseph Smith contradicting his own story those should be represented as well.

@Anon, you are right to question what we call "Scary quotes". Their use in the phrase you mention is completely without merit. Those should be removed. As for starting from scratch, I don't honestly see the point other than putting the article in a state more amenable to one side or the other. If there are specific examples of things that are wrong, let's fix them. I do not think three more months of debate about which version we should revert back to only to start over is the best use of time.

@Canadiandy Hey Canadiandy. You, Steve, and Routerone have some very valid concerns. The fact that you and so many other LDS people (FAIRLDS, Steve, Routerone, yourself...) are so offended by this particular article makes me think maybe we should seriously look into it. I see how heavily this article draws from research collected by old school historians with an axe to grind or with no sensitivity to your faith as a formal religion. You're right, most (if not all)other religions are afforded a greater respect and tolerance than seems to have been here historically. I see that you are not merely "Whin[ing]" but are expressing frustration with the original tenor and cynical direction this article's framework was originally built on. I see that it is not merely a few small details that can be ironed out over a short period of time but an entire rethinking of the article that is likely needed. I also understand fully why you might feel so disenfranchised by the process. So, seeing we need to start hacking at the roots and not merely the leaves of the problem, what do you and any neutral researchers suggest we might do?

There, now will you suggest a change? Or is there more specific phraseology you need me to use to get you to contribute to this article rather than attack it's contributors?

@Everyone, I suggest all of us here read the principle of B.R.D. and apply it to this article. We are going to need to exercise some Good Faith toward each other. If you see a change that needs to be made: prepare yourself, make the change, if it gets reverted bring the discussion here. When the discussion has yielded a result, edit the article to reflect the consensus result. There will need to be concrete citations for any change made, and/or concrete rebuttals to any change rejected. You know, the way we edit any Wikipedia article.

Now, I'm gonna go change that phrase the anon mentioned earlier. Please fell free to join me. Padillah (talk) 12:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Steve, do note that the reliability of Brodie and Bushman has been discussed in the past. I'm too lazy right now to look at the talk page archives and tell you exactly where, but take a look for yourself. ...comments? ~BFizz 02:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm getting claims from all over the place that I am frustrated or I think I'm being treated unfairly. Also people are saying that I'm looking for a "faith promoting" article. That's obviously false. I originally came on here complaining about this stuff but have since started only talking from an editorial viewpoint. I think I made it clear. All I see from an editorial perspective is conflicting accounts about events. A real editor would recognize POV problems on both the inside as well as the outside on this particular subject. You can't put a WP rubber stamp approach by saying all outside journalists and authors are reliable. This subject is not like 99% of what WP usually covers. Here we have a phenomena occuring largely within a single country in which those who had good experiences with it joined it and those who had bad experiences hated it. Therefore all witnesses of the good experiences are automatically nullified under WP rules as you seem to say. From a neutral standpoint I see many problems with that. Am I off in that thinking? I mean I really do appreciate neutral outside sources whenever possible but on the same token I don't want to be taken by a non-neutral source either. Frankly I'm afraid by the fact that nobody here has acknowledged that. As if no one here wants to admit there ever existed bias against Joseph Smith in the entire published works of the world...as if academic presses would be immune. No one has ever lied about Joseph Smith. It's not smart not to question these things.

Concerning the question I just put forth; Padillah has come up with a common sense solution in talking to you John. All we have to say is that "Joseph claimed" this and that. Obviously, the readers will know that these statements are not backed up. This is the least that can be done. Any legal document, any news report, any piece of historical information always has what the person claimed or said. The article cannot leave those out. This isn't "faith promoting" this is just common sense of any editor writing about any person. Steve200255 (talk) 19:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Much of the critical nature is the result of contemporary peer review of Smith’s life’s work. Apparently many of his comtemporaries considered him to be similar to modern day Jim Jones or David Karesh, and the modern existence of his established religion doesn’t erase the fact that his contemporaries viewed him as such, and as that is from secondary source and critical examination it holds at least some historical significance which is why some is cited here. There must be some material that can be used to accomplish your goals that fit the criteria, though I don’t know of any. Whether or not he actually was a prophet is a matter of faith which belongs in a religious discussion not an encyclopedia article. Using ‘claimed’ sounds like a great solution, and when there are conflicting reports as to what Smith claimed on different occasions, both should be recorded and noted as conflicting in the article.--Alan355 (talk) 21:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Anyone else want to try to come up with a different logical solution than Padillah's as to what to do about recounting Joseph's lone experiences? This might be the most critical question on this entire discussion page so far. Please comment. Steve200255 (talk) 19:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Too long

An unrelated note: the article is 164 kb long, which is 64 kb over the "split strongly recommended" size. I suggest Personal history vs. Distinctive views and teachings is a good splitting point. And that those section are WP:spinned out. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 11:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

When you look at article size, you don't look at the raw size, but rather at the size of the "readable prose", which for this article is currently 46 kB, which is well within the reasonable range. The raw size seems inflated here because of the extensive footnotes, which are not counted in considering article size. COGDEN 23:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Also note the existence of various sub-articles for the various eras of Smith's life, as well as the Teachings of Joseph Smith, Jr. subarticle. This article is the parent article, which summarizes the others. ...comments? ~BFizz 06:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

This article does not deserve to be a GA

Why?

• 1) Too much synthesis and self created conclusions from combining sources by the editors
• 2) Contains mass OR
• 3) Heavy POV pushing tone/prose
• 4) Very selective and biased with negative detail excessive and positive detail excluded or relegated to footnotes.

For a careful and detailed analysis on this, see here: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]

There are, numerous problems with this page. This should never ever be a GA and its an absolute insult that someone had the idea to even think of nominating it. What an embarassment to wikipedia. Routerone (talk) 10:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The criticism of the Foundation for Apologetic Information & Research is now hopelessly out of date, Routerone. Perhaps as a Mormon you might put in a good word and get someone there to more accurately reflect the article as it's evolved during the last six months—a lot of Wiki-time for an article as volatile as this one.--John Foxe (talk) 18:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps if you bothered to look at the links it would help, they updated it accordancee with the article in May. Routerone (talk) 20:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

No, that was May 2009. The last update was January.--John Foxe (talk) 22:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Thats still close enough, and regardless most of the "facts" in question which are tarring the article, haven't changed since then, maybe the wording, but same problems haven't been removed. I am 100% certain their point still stands. Routerone (talk) 22:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at some of their specific examples. I've fixed a lot of the problem wording myself. I'd actually prefer FAIR's critique be up to date because I've referred several folks to it to demonstrate how accurate the article is. That may sound odd to you, but to non-Mormons the FAIR complaints appear non-essential, even trivial. Like Balaam, FAIR's intent was to curse but they've ended up blessing instead.--John Foxe (talk) 22:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, there are many reasons why I don't think it's good practice to be discussing the merits of Good Article status on a non-Wikimedia Foundation website, particularly one that is not open to the public. If the FAIR people have issues, they should bring them here, and they should be up to date. COGDEN 01:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

There's an old wiki-saying to address your concerns, Routerone. SOFIXIT. Specific examples of what you feel is wrong are always welcome. FAIR brought up specific examples, and many have been addressed. ...comments? ~BFizz 07:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the topic creator, this article is not close to being correct by any stretch of the imagination. It uses invalid references who used invalid references who used invalid references, etc. It's a mutual anti-mormon agreement society at work with the posted references. They all quote each other and also quote illegitimate "witnesses" who were actually just died in the wool Joseph Smith or Mormon haters. These include excommunicated Mormons (unrepentant sinners) who obviously would have gotten angry at the prophet for getting removed from the Church. What an obvious bias these people would have against Mormons and especially against Joseph Smith, Jr., and now they are believable sources??? How can historical truth be derived from such sources? It can't. That's why this article stinks, it is totally unbelievable. If you want to look up sources on the subject that meet the highest standards of world scholarly research refer to "The Joseph Smith Papers." It is a relatively new project that is coming out in annual installments that will eventually comprise 30 volumes. In it are photo copies of the original personal journal entries, correspondance, discourses and written histories, and legal and business documents of Joseph Smith written in his own hand and by the hands of those working alongside him. It beats the current references to published rumors.--steve200255 (talk) 21:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Understandably, everyone should be striving for historical authenticity using the "highest standards of world scholarly research", but in doing so we must consider that Joseph Smith did neither, and as such the Book of Mormon should be stricken as well. Much of the "embarrassing" evidence comes from mormon authors and BYU research. Many activities and lives of historical figures are not all admirable and it should be recorded honestly, embarrassing or not. If Joseph Smith was a fraud he should stand up to intelligent reason and study, if he doesn't then it should be recorded accordingly, that is the position of the Bible which he studied. Prophet or David Karesh, he deserves a fair study and we deserve honest answers.--12.109.196.226 (talk) 21:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

In regards to the statement of Joseph Smith 'not adhering to' the highest standards of scholarly research that would be mixing apples and oranges. Obviously, a direct revelation or a revealed scriptural book cannot employ the methods of scholarly research to justify its own truth or validity. So I'm not sure what that statement by anonymous person could mean. Yes, I absolutely agree with what I think anonymous meant to say 'If Joseph Smith was a true prophet he should stand up to intelligent reason and study...". I'm pretty sure editors here are only supposed to look for facts and write in a proper tone, not making unjustifiable conclusions. In contrast, injecting personal feelings or qualifying historical events by what an editor feels is "embarassing" is not really material to this discussion.

As far as what I see as a need for specific corrections to the article I see there are no quotes from Joseph Smith himself. That's funny, this is a history and condensed biography of the man, shouldn't some of his own words be displayed? And for this, who could be trusted to have his own words recorded correctly? The Church with its preserved original documents or some outside source? FYI there is a very large difference in what the said Church has recorded as his words and what Quin and some of these other authors say are Joseph's own words. I've thought of the possibility of the Church altering Joseph's words to make them look better, but then that doesn't make sense given the question: why would the Church want to alter the recorded words of a man who obviously got many to follow him saying what he said? Editorially, I can't think of how the Church's records wouldn't be a lot more accurate than outside sources. In addition there is quite a difference between what editors on here summarize as Joseph's words and what the Church has recorded as what he said. LDS.org has the Church's records and links. Steve200255 (talk) 17:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The article actually does contain quotations from Joseph Smith. Nevertheless, it's important to repeat that Wikipedia privileges secondary over primary sources. Therefore, for purposes of this encyclopedia article, quoting Brodie, Bushman, and Quinn is preferable to quoting Joseph Smith. For good or ill, that's just the way Wikipedia works.--John Foxe (talk) 19:19, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Requested outside opinions

I've requested outside opinions regarding the article's neutrality at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity#Help requested at Joseph Smith, Jr. ...comments? ~BFizz 03:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks BFizz.

////Canadiandy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.180.110.164 (talk) 06:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, knowing a little about LDS, I deem the article text writing in general being very near WP:NEUTRALity, a tiny bit biased towards a PRO-LDS interpretation, regarding wikipedia writing style (WP:MOS). The purpose of this neutrality is to make a text flow that is neutral in tone, always attributes claims to the source claiming them, and avoiding loaded words. There are a few slight deviations:

Founding a church (1827–30)

Pro-LDS biased: all occurences of 'translations', f.ex.:

Translation was completed around

and

The translation, known as the

translation should be replaced by "translation", since they were alleged translations,

Anti-LDS biased:

The Book of Mormon brought Smith regional notoriety,[71] but also strong opposition by those who remembered Smith's money-digging and his 1826 trial near Colesville.[72]

loaded words underlined.

to mention a few examples. These deviations are always minor.

However, I don't know whether the text discources balances the pro-LDS and the anti-LDS sources correctly but I'm inclined towars some few imporant biases in both directions. Having a personal experience with LDS proselytization I was instructed to avoid anti-LDS sources. Having a vast experience from science and main-stream Christianity I of course disobeyed and compared the pro-LDS and the anti-LDS claims, which is in accord with Wikipedia standards, but of course in discord with LDS standards. Therefore I feel that the statements about Smiths alleged institution of polygamy might be anti-LDS biased, but not without some justification. The text should stress that the polygamist tendencies in LDS might have had multiple sources, of which Jr. Smith is one possible source, also the section Impact is much too pro-LDS biased, since LDS falls far far outside Christianity from an anti-LDS Christian standpoint, not adhering to the Nicene Creed not adhering to a Trinity, essentially being polytheist a.s.o.. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 09:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I overstroke my own doubts about that polygamy stuff after reading that leading LDS historians believe that Jr. took "plural wives". Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 10:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Ouch. Did you compare the tenor of the article with those of other non-mainstream Christian articles (i.e. Seventh-Day Adventists, Jehovahs Witness, Masons, or other leaders, i.e. Luther, Mohammed)? Could you please also look onto one aspect of the problem, if you have time. Read or even scan Bushman's "Rough Stone Rolling." It is the only "Pro-LDS" (in quotation marks because it is only cited as pro-LDS because the writer is himself LDS, most LDS would, including Bushman himself now, would not view his writing as Pro-LDS but as academically neutral at best) writing that seems to be used more than a few times. And if you read the book you will likely identify that his research is cherry-picked. When he writes on Smith's weakness that is included, when he does not it is ignored. It is unfair that the only LDS writer who is accepted is one whose writing focus was to identify Smith's flaws. I don't see any anti-LDS contributors whose focus was to find the good in Smith's life.173.180.110.164 (talk) 14:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

I don't exactly understand what you're after. I evaluated the text to see whether it adhers to WP:NPOV regarding writing style and made some rough sketch on the balance on facts, taking care to explain my POV (we're all POV:s on 2 legs, except pets that have 4 legs) and trying to make a statement about the neutrality of the article with that POVvyness caveat – the general balance is negotiable. I don't think that other articles and non-WP books are patterns to copy: there are too many C-class articles on wikipedia and some have a really disgusting quality and are otherwise hard to fix. I'm not able to make a quite neutral and complete evaluation of the article contents, but I have to make my contribution to that neutralizing/improvement process in order to the improvement of WP not to stop. As said: I'm POVvy against LDS, because of my personal Christian position, but disregarding that, I've met a lot of nice LDS:ers, and a few less nice ones. My interest is neither to save the cultural bacons of LDS nor to make the presentation of Jr. Smith unfairly negative. His impact outside LDS is negative, the outside impression of LDS:ers is "nice guys!" and "I can't believe that!!". Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 11:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

What's said about Luther, Mohammad, Mother Theresa, Jim Jones or any other religious figure is irrelevant. This article concerns Joseph Smith.

Actually, Fawn Brodie, the bête noire of the LDS Church, has a number of good things to say about Smith, some of which are quoted in this article. The reason why Bushman's Rough Stone Rolling is so often cited in the article is that his is the only scholarly biography about Smith written from an LDS perspective. Wikipedia privileges scholarly secondary sources, and while there are many LDS biographies that "find the good in Smith's life," none of them is peer-reviewed scholarship.--John Foxe (talk) 16:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not "what's said about Luther, Mohammad", and others that is relevant. It's how it's said. It is the tone of respect and dignity which forms precedence for courtesy and respect for their topic. Again you are speaking with an inflammatory tone when you write things like, "Fawn Brodie, the bête noire of the LDS Church... ." The Church leadership has not paid much, if any, attention to her as an individual at all. They have on a few minor occasions addressed her works, but have been quite respectful of her academic privileges. The only people who really know much about her at all are member academics like Nibley and such. The reality is that with so much mud that's been slung at us over the past 150 years we pretty much ignore it all. When I step outside my LDS perspective though, in the interest of social justice, I think it should not be so.

I love reading about the town of Quincy Illinois that took in Pioneer Saints while everone else around them was driving them out for their religious beliefs. I've read about Quincy. I have ancestors that went through Quincy. Folks, this is no Quincy.

It's up to you now, Bork. 199.60.41.15 (talk) 19:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

Sir, Smith was an inflammatory individual in his time, this article reflects that and still inflames people. That reaction is more (though not necessarily) indicative of the man than the quality of this article. Many of the events in his life are reasons for which so much good and ill intentioned ‘mud’ is around. The crusades are a black eye on catholicism but it happened, murdered women and children in the streets of Jerusalem, it looks bad and reflects the state of the religious organization of the time, but it happened. Smith may look bad historically and we need to be open enough to say maybe it’s accurate and looking bad could indicate truth just as much as a POV. Not trying to make the comparison but Hitler orchestrated the holocaust, if mud is thrown at his historical impact by contemporary critics it would be deserved. Please recommend changes or sources you think fixes the problem. --Alan355 (talk) 21:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

1. Spiccy, spiecy, jymi, juicy! Bork! 2. The choice of sources, pro and against, is a real WP:NEUTRALity issue, they should be balanced according to the wikipedia policy. However, I believe that that policy does never claim that there should be a balance 1:1, instead the sides should be balanced according to the topic and the availability and strength of sources of each side. 3. My first evaluation only regarded the writing style, the balance of semantic context is another question, if you by "It's how it's said." mean style, then I deem it is WP:NPOV, and also the content of the article doesn't seem to concoct a WP:OR fantasy image, it adhers fairly to the story as given by LDS, but it interprets it differently. If you would like to stress the LDS interpretation, you should IMHO be allowed to do so, if the alternate outside view is not removed or diminished, but of course the LDS interpretation should be sourced as everything else. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 11:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

If you enjoy reading about Quincy, Illinois, there's a considerable section in its Wikipedia article about the town's kind treatment of LDS exiles.

But this article is about Joseph Smith. It's tone is neutral; in fact, it's perhaps overly sympathetic to the LDS point of view. (Just make me Dictator of this article's content for a week and I assure you the article would be much tougher after I finished citing additional scholarly works.) As for the LDS Church and Fawn Brodie, in 1971 BYU professor Marvin S. Hill said, "whole issues of B.Y.U. Studies and Dialogue have been devoted to considering questions on the life of the Mormon prophet raised by Brodie" and "to this day in certain circles in Utah to acknowledge that one has 'read Fawn Brodie' is to create doubts as to one's loyalty to the Church."

Your complaints about the supposed bias of the article are nothing but sentimental musings unsupported by any specific examples.--John Foxe (talk) 19:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Of course there would be whole issues of BYU studies devoted to Brodie's writings. She is, as you say, prominent. But you would be just as critical of the Church if BYU did not discuss Brodie's writings so your point is empty. If you read your own quote, even it is referring to the study of her work, not her personally. BYU is an accredited University with tenured professors and still you are inferring the Church (not BYU professors or individual members)somehow singles her out as a "bête noire." If you mean certain individuals, fair. Say that. But not the Church. That is totally untrue. And please be civil, referring to my concerns as sentimental musings is condescending and seems out of line with the five pillars.173.180.110.164 (talk) 23:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

The Church as an organization made concerted efforts to discredit Brodie. Brodie's biographer Bringhurst makes it clear that opposition to Brodie's ideas were organized directly by the Church: "In May 1946, Mormon Church spokesmen stepped up their attacks against the author and her book....This critique apparently mirrored the official position of the Mormon Church, for it was soon reprinted as a pamphlet and circulated as a missionary tract." (110) And that was even before Nibley got into the act.

I challenge you to prove me wrong about what I've called your "sentimental musings" about bias here. Point out a specific example. If the statement can't be supported by scholarship, I'll both fix it myself and thank you for the suggestion. Otherwise what I've said is neither condescending nor out of line with Wikipedia policy. It's just true.--John Foxe (talk) 02:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

What evidence and names does Bringhurst provide in reference to these mysterious "spokesmen" who stepped up attacks against her? Or is he relying on Brodie's own testimony of the fact? I'm not surprised the Church responding to her writings (remember many non-member critics were highly critical of Brodie) but what proof do you have to back up your words that the Church was discourteous towards Brodie personally as you implied. 173.180.110.164 (talk) 05:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

Bringhurst cites the Improvement Era (March 1946) comments of John Widtsoe who asserted that Brodie's book should be "of no interest to Latter-day Saints who have correct knowledge of the history of Joseph Smith." Bringhurst also cites Deseret News reports of the April 1946 General Conference where President George Albert Smith said that those who "have belittled Joseph Smith...the odor of their infamy will ever be with them." Further, Apostle Albert E. Bowen denounced "the poisonous slander of those who would make [Smith] out an impostor." In May 1946 the "Church News" section of the Deseret News called Brodie's book "a composite of all anti-Mormon books that have gone before, pieced into a pattern conformable to the author's own particular rationale." Brodie noted in a letter to her friend Dale Morgan that the Church had "really let go both barrels." (Bringhurst, 110-11)

So, Canadiandy, are you going to prove me correct by refusing to provide any examples of bias in this article?--John Foxe (talk) 11:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Huh? The only direct reference to Brodie made in any of these reports is Widtsoe. And all he says is her book (again her work, not her) "should be of no interest to Latter-Day Saints." I hardly see how this justifies you or Bringhurst (who himself states to have had a "Literary affair with Fawn M. Brodie" no bias there, hey) making the claim that Brodie is (not 'was') the (not 'a') bête noire of the Church or "attack[ed]" by its spokesmen. As to the book review, it seems perfectly in line with what other non-mormon reviewers were saying about her book (i.e. she cherry-picked her findings to prove her hypothesis). I don't see how that qualifies as an attack on Brodie herself. Should the reviewer have lied (calling the book good to avoid conflict)? Or if he had not reviewed Brodie's book (to silence it) she would likely have seen that as an attack as well. Doesn't Bringhurst allude to that on page 107 (FMB: ALB)?173.180.110.164 (talk) 16:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

Nice attempt at trying to obfuscate what's as clear as Moroni on the temple spire. I bet some of your co-religionists are cringing. Your response illustrates how far you'll go to try to avoid providing examples of bias in this article—you know, the one about Joseph Smith, Jr., the one we're supposed to be discussing here. For the third time, please provide a specific example of bias in this article. If the statement in the article can't be supported by scholarship, I'll both fix it myself and express my gratitude for the suggestion.--John Foxe (talk) 17:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

This is getting heated, John. Clearly, you seem to feel Joseph Smith is an evil man and that the article is bang on, while I think he was a man of great integrity and that the sources and contexts here have been choreographed almost as much as Brodie's and the biographer who 'Fawns' after her. You can take comfort in the fact that most people here are agreeing with you at present and so I'll back off before this turns into a wall of text. 199.60.41.15 (talk) 18:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

No problem, Canadiandy. I asked for a specific example of bias in this article, and you've refused to provide it. Although I'm not at all "heated," I am experiencing some schadenfreude—an emotion that should never be given its head. Besides, I want you to feel free to write me personally if there's anything I can do to help you or your classes.--John Foxe (talk) 19:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.180.110.164 (talk) 16:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

John, I can see where some readers would think, based on the "bête noire" label, that the Church had declared a fatwa against Brodie herself. That is the pith of what is being said - The Church thinks the person is to be avoided. The problem is nothing you've shown has presented that viewpoint. Padillah (talk) 18:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Readers may interpret as they will—and I've seen some remarkably strange interpretations in my time at Wikipedia—but it's illogical to believe that I meant that the LDS Church was antagonistic toward Fawn Brodie herself rather than her works. Although Brodie was indeed shunned by some members of her family, she's now been dead almost thirty years. She's beyond being avoided in this life. Nevertheless, her book goes marching on, selling a thousand copies a year.--John Foxe (talk) 20:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, for cryin' out loud. I though this was about the article. Canadiandy, feel free to call out Foxe all you like but I'm not defending something that's not even part of article space. Foxe, my apologies if I came across gruff or inhospitable. Tossing epithets around like that is not productive but I have no intention of getting into a twist over something that's not even in article space. Padillah (talk) 12:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem, Padillah. The business about Brodie was just a Canadiandy filibuster. For what it's worth, both Fawn Brodie and No Man Knows My History are now both GA.--John Foxe (talk) 15:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The articles on Idi Amin and Nixon are both GA too. I doubt I'd call those people reliable sources. Hey, didn't Brodie actually do a bio on Nixon detailing his having a gay lover? I don't seem to see that tidbit on the Wikipedia article, nor is she included as a source there. And I don't see her writings on Jefferson on Wikipedia. In fact, it seems the only time her extensive professional work is ever sourced is when she is writing on Joseph Smith, and then she's a prominent, reliable source. So, her extensive Nixon research isn't noteworthy. Her extensive Jefferson research isn't noteworthy. But her exposé on Joseph Smith is embraced as the forefront, most prominent work on the subject. Perhaps when this article can find more reliable and stable sources (remember prominent does not necessarily mean reliable) that did not need psychotherapy, it will have a better chance at GA. 173.180.112.66 (talk) 16:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

Canadiandy, your complaint against Brodie is a complaint against Wikipedia standards, by which she is a thoroughly reliable source.

Actually, Brodie's nonsensical obsession with Nixon's homosexuality is mentioned in the Wikipedia article on her. Fortunately, Brodie did not become enamored of psychohistory until after she completed writing No Man Knows My History—which fact is also mentioned in the article about her. Besides, I think when you count the references, citations to Bushman, the LDS scholar, far outnumber those of Brodie, the LDS apostate.--John Foxe (talk) 19:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the Impact section

Thanks, Rursus, for your input. I don't really see what could be improved for the "impact" section, it is intentionally there to illustrate the positive light that Smith's followers see him in, and always uses phrases like "to Latter Day Saints", "the Saints believed", and "Mormon leaders began teaching". ...comments? ~BFizz 22:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Individual comments above, I think there should be some clarification that JS Jr. have had a positive impact almost exclusively within LDS, RLDS and all those other churches perusing Mormon's Book. There was some gnostic (I was at that time one of them) speculation about JS Jr. being a gnostic prophet some time, but that was based on a falsification of some documents. That temporary gnostic influence is not notable. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 11:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The "Impact" section is already limited to his impact among Latter Day Saints, except for the first sentence. That sentence only says that Smith was one of the most imaginative, charismatic, and controversial leaders in American religious history. This statement is backed up by citations from non-Mormon writers, and Mormons don't disagree. Though the "Impact" section doesn't say it, and I'm not saying we need to add it, you could also argue that Smith had an fairly important impact on the histories of Missouri, Illinois, and the Utah Territory. COGDEN 00:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Will be GA reviewed someday soon

This article has been listed at WP:Good article nominations for about a month. Due to the backlog, reviewers have not yet gotten to this article. If any of you have the spare time, please help review other unrelated articles to help clear the backlog. Just thought I'd mention. Thanks, guys. ...comments? ~BFizz 04:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Tentative GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr./GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

This article has been disputed heavily with regards to it's neutrality. Some of these are old, but some are relatively recent. What is the consensus, is this article stable and neutral enough to be a GA? I would appreciate it if someone could give an up-to-date statement regarding the neutrality debate. Obvious neutrality is a clear requirement for a GA. Reviewer: ^~Gosox⁽⁵⁵⁾₍₅₅₎ 17:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Gosox,

I'm a bit of a vocal outsider here so take my input for what it's worth.

From my position the article is quite inflammatory in overall tone (thus the frequent input by myself and others highly offended in the LDS community), long, over-sourced, and dependent on unstable sources. Many argue that Brodie is the most prominent on the subject, but as many would gladly source another researcher with less academic baggage (much speculation on her methods and bias). The other researcher cited frequently is touted by contributors as a faithful Mormon, yet this is a red herring as the majority of his research (in his book "A Rough Stone Rolling") was purposely aimed at finding the subject's flaws. This does not exclude his research but does beg the question about balance in the article. I know there are many who would like to see this article GAed as recognition of their efforts, but I think we need to remember this is not an article about pomegranates, it is about an important religious figure to a large faith community, and prudence and sensitivity should be considered before expediting this article's approval prematurely.

Thanks.

173.180.112.66 (talk) 17:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

Surely you all agree that both sides should be presented, correct? I mean, if there's a debate, we can't just show one side. We need to include all opinions (at least all mainstream ones). I plan to ask for a second opinion, as I don't know much about the subject and am new to the GAN process, as this is clearly contested. The article does seem to use multiple sources. GA promotion is not for anyone, it is for the article.^~Gosox⁽⁵⁵⁾₍₅₅₎ 18:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe the article remarkably neutral. Most criticism of the article's neutrality has come from, on one side, arch-conservative Mormons (like my friend Canadiandy above, who doesn't trust the scholarship of Richard Bushman, the best-known historian among members of the LDS Church) and a few vocal anti-Mormons on the other.--John Foxe (talk) 18:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll give my perspective as a major contributor. This article has been quite stable for several months, prior to which there was a major effort by several editors to improve the article and document it with sources. To my knowledge, there have been no real edit wars, and I think the article is remarkably stable given its controversial subject matter. This may be due to the fact that the article is so heavily documented with well-regarded sources and citations, and it is hard to argue with the sources.

As to neutrality, because of the highly-controversial subject matter, there will always be some editors who think the article is biased either for or against Mormonism. I think the article strikes a good balance. The two most heavily-cited sources are to Smith's two most prominent biographers: Bushman, a Mormon apologist whose work is well regarded by both Mormon and non-Mormon scholars, and Brodie, a "cultural" Mormon who was skeptical of Smith's prophetic claim, but whose work was the predominant Smith biography for a generation. Though the most heavy reliance is on Bushman and Brodie, other prominent views and sources of information about Smith have not been ignored, including the views of Mormon apologetic scholars other than Bushman, and non-Mormon sources.

From time to time, a Mormon editor arises on the talk page with a passionate complaint that the article is "anti-Mormon." However, I think this is to be expected and does not affect the article's merit as a good article. Mormons have an acute interest in this subject because Smith is their revered prophet. Some Mormons have ingrained within their soul an idealized and simplified view of Smith based on what is taught in LDS Church publications and at the pulpit. This image of Smith does not necessarily correspond to the more complex and human image of Smith that arises from the consensus of scholarly sources. To many Mormons, any portrayal of Smith other than the idealized, simplified version, will be offensive. That's not to say, however, that all Mormons will find this article offensive. I happen to be a Mormon, and I think the article is a fair and academically-honest presentation of Smith. The most cited source, Bushman, is a Mormon apologist, and much of the material that is controversial to some Mormons is presented and acknowledged by Bushman himself. There is nothing in this article that would surprise any Mormon scholar who has studied the life of Joseph Smith. COGDEN 18:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I was honestly quite surprised by the outrage on the talk page and figured as much. The article seemed relatively neutral to me. I am of the belief that perfect neutrality is impossible, but this article does pretty well. I would say that it meets the criteria for neutrality. Reading through the peer reviews, one concern has been length. There are certainly longer FAs, and this is just GA, so I don't think it's absolutely an issue. I'm assuming that the issues raised in the recent peer review have been addressed? ^~Gosox⁽⁵⁵⁾₍₅₅₎ 20:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I saw the nomination, reviewed comments here and in talk, then reviewed article. Generally I found it to be ok, but there were a few mild instances of bias (like calling Smith a prophet in lead, as if this is objective category, like 'lawyer'); or some tortured passages, scarred from past battles I suspect. Anyway, I made a few minor adjustments, carefully reviewing footnotes and citations, trying to find some better NPOV phrasing. User John Foxe reverted all of my multiple edits, three times at this count, to "his" earlier version without discussion in talk. So we clearly have some issues ongoing here.Tao2911 (talk) 22:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

For the record, and as an "arch-conservative" LDS member, I completely and wholeheartedly disagree, but I'm clearly outnumbered. Given the fact the majority view disregards most LDS perspectives (except those critical of their own faith) as NPOV I see GA of the article as now a foregone conclusion. But I am glad that Wikipedia maintains an article history as I suspect future contributors with a greater sensitivity and courtesy will look back at this treatment of Joseph Smith as merely a reflection of our present society's cynicism toward the LDS faith. In fact it might be a perfect case study. But again, that is my minority view in a world where majority rules. But don't worry, most of us LDS are used to criticism so we'll shrug it off as we always have. So damn the torpedoes (and the Mormons?), full steam ahead. I'm not bitter, disappointed, sure. Surprised, a little. But when I think of the fact that a self-professed Mormon cynic who thinks Joseph Smith was an evil man has been given the greatest latitude in defining our most revered prophet of this dispensation I just remind myself that time, as always, is on the side of truth. And as the Christian hymn states, "God is his own interpreter / And he will make it plain." (I suspect the word 'plain' was used in the hymn because they couldn't find anything that rhymed with 'using fewer than 430 notations'). While I would ask that you reconsider your position, I thank you for at least considering my input with respect, Gosox. I remain, that much-maligned, Mormon meliorist, 173.180.112.66 (talk) 23:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

The neutrality of this article is adequately demonstrated by the comments of the last two editors, the first of whom believes the article too pro-Mormon, the second, too anti-Mormon.--John Foxe (talk) 10:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

As an active editor (most active I'd warrant) with some possible "ownership" issues, I think John Foxe should not be making assessments, or commenting at allTao2911 (talk) 14:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC) here...

• Second Opinion. Per request at WP:GAN, I am here to assist User:Gosox5555's GA review by giving my own views as to the article's quality, and specifically, its neutrality.
  I see no outstanding issues with the article that would prevent it from attaining Good Article status. It is neutral in tone, and appears to properly report history and beliefs without endorsement or forcing the reader to conclusions. I slightly prefer this lead revision over this lead revision, but both are of acceptable quality and the current quibbles over wording appear to be minor and in no danger of affecting the page's stability.
  Be aware, however, that I have not checked the page images for image policy compliance, nor reviewed any of the page references, and the final word on the matter of course goes to Gosox. --erachima talk 07:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• Update Thank you erachima for your second opinion. I have checked the images and they are all set. I just have to check out a few of the books from the library and make sure that a random sampling are accurate (and make sure that they are reliable). Sorry for the delays. ^~Gosox⁽⁵⁵⁾₍₅₅₎ 14:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Delays are really not an issue, the article has been up for review for a while and we appreciate that you are taking the time to review it. No rush. ...comments? ~BFizz 17:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - I do not disagree with any of the conclusions of the reviewer(s), but would like to point out that the article has quite a bit of WP:OVERLINKing. Examples include: Book of Mormon, golden plates, polygamy, Carthage, and many others. Also, links like "116 pages of manuscript", "taken it to heaven", "married her" and others are not intuitive. It is up to the main reviewer if this should affect the nomination, but I believe the article would be improved if these issues were addressed. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 16:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll give a few more days if anyone wants to address this, and I'll make my final call next Sunday or Monday if this has been addressed. I'm not sure that it affects the nomination, but it's still worth doing. ^~Gosox⁽⁵⁵⁾₍₅₅₎ 00:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Even if it's already a "good" article, reducing any extra or unintuitive links would make it even better. I can start with a conservative removal of links and address some of the specific issues above, but I imagine this will be a continuing process involving discussions on the talk page, because linking is to some extent a matter of taste, balance, and style. COGDEN 00:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Just one afterthought regarding the comments above: I think that 116 pages of manuscript is a reasonably intuitive piped link. It would be a bit unclear, for example, to refer to them as "lost 116 pages" prior to their loss. However, there's a chance we can even avoid this issue by only linking to the sub-article after the pages are actually lost. COGDEN 01:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

We will indeed address issues with overlinking and easter eggs, but please remember that these are minor issues compared to the main points of WP:Good article criteria. Thanks. ...comments? ~BFizz 00:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Tentative Weaponbb7's GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Prose is good for the most part bu euphemisms like "sectarian fervor of their day" needs clean up. I see a lot of "Some say" failing WP:WEASEL particularly the way " Some secular scholars argue that the witnesses thought they saw the plates with their "spiritual eyes," Who are these Scholars? How many hold the View? Does it matter if they are secular? also "The old Jackson Countians resented the Mormon newcomers for various political and religious reasons." makes me uneasy.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   An article on a important historical figure should include more books from Academic presses but the Biographers all look reliable. So while i have reservations about it meets the letter of the law on sourcing

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   l would consider incorporating more of the Origin of Latter Day Saint polygamy as this seems to be minimized. Incorporate Criticism of Joseph Smith, Jr. into the prose. As these seem to have been minimized or left out entirely. Also include a Bibiolography of his works. He was a prolific writer portions of Works relating to Joseph Smith, Jr. should be listed here.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   I am concerned here with the Bias as this seems to overly praiseful. Critical Commentary seems to been left out or minimized

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Seems stable no major edit wars recently

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Looks good here.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Articles on New religious movement are always contentious topics and their founders often bear the brunt of such contention. This article has some severe flaws with bias as it lacks critical commentary of this figure. Sourcing seems to meet criteria for WP:GA but will likely not completely pass muster at FA. It fails mostly on the Bias as there is legitimate criticisms and expansion on the more controversial aspects of his theology especially the plural marriage aspect. Though excellently sourced the bias shows. The overall prose is flowery and full of euphemisms making it encyclopedic though an artful in its use. This article is good but needs improvement.Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:25, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

responses

For what it's worth, I'm a non-Mormon (in fact, a "never-been-a-Mormon") who believes this encyclopedia article is about as unbiased and nicely balanced as any piece about Joseph Smith can be. I wish to be respectful here, but I think what Weaponbb7 interprets as pro-Mormon bias stems from his own lack of familiarity with the literature.--John Foxe (talk) 20:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I've started a few sections on the article's talk page regarding 1) a bibliography and 2) the coverage of criticism/polygamy. I agree with Foxe that the article is balanced, and know that several editors feel the article is too critical. I'd like to see some examples from the text which Weaponbb7 considers "overly praiseful". ...comments? ~BFizz 21:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

My questions and comments on Weaponbb7's comments:

1. What is "sectarian ferver of their day" a euphemism for? Do you have any other examples of euphemisms?
2. "Some secular scholars argue" is not a "weasel word" situation, because the identity of the actual secular scholars who say that are set forth in the cited references.
3. As to wishing that there were more works from academic presses, this is not a situation where there books from academic presses exist but are not cited. You can be assured that the most prominent, respected sources are cited for this article, and their frequency of citation is roughly in proportion to their prominence in the field.
4. You argue that to enhance the "breadth of coverage", we should include more depth on the subject of polygamy. I think you are confusing breadth with depth. This is a very broad overview article, and there are numerous topics that could be covered in a lot of detail. I don't think you can say that this article minimizes Smith's polygamy, given the limited amount of space we have available.
5. As to being "overly praisful": I'm not aware of any part of the article that either praises or trashes Smith. ::There is a passage that says that Mormons revere him, but that's just stating the obvious. I also think we need some specific examples of where you think critical commentary has been minimized or left out. My sense is that critical sources and perspectives are well represented, and some would say that they predominate the article.

COGDEN 22:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok I knew i have some flack from people who worked so hard on it and have done a pretty desecent job. this is normal type of reaction is normal

"sectarian ferver of their day" its not the type of language that is not good in a Encyclopedia its very flowery language. There is a fair bit of flowery language here which could be reduced to more simple and precise words. "well-to-do neighbor"

Below the Infobox in there is Template that says says "This article is part of the series Joseph Smith, Jr." Than list the subjects "the polygammy" and "Criticism" Among other things sections that were left out of the article. I do not know why these two were left out but they were so i have to question why? leaving those two out seemed odd to leave out I had to question why?

"Legacy" seems an odd choice of words for a section it makes it sound like the page is memorial.

Classic example of language I am concerned about "Historians regard Joseph Smith as one of the most imaginative, charismatic, and controversial leaders in American religious history." Its stated but this needs to be expanded as it is not clear to me reading it what is "imaginative" about what he has done? and again why is he "controversial leaders." this could substatially expanded by a few paragraphs.

"On matters of public policy, Smith favored a strong central bank and high tariffs to protect American business and agriculture. Smith disfavored imprisonment of convicts except for murder, preferring efforts to reform criminals through labor; he also opposed courts-martial for military deserters. " is complexly uncited could use citation. critical Commentary might involve some scholarly Analysis of his action Stephen A. Kent wrote a good one a few years ago that might be useful as an example or as a useful reference

I would argue that "Some Scholars" is weaselly... just name the scholars who say so!

Over all I think this article is pretty good. The Actual Biography portion of his life is so well done I can't find anything wrong with it. I think I will give this the thumbs up once the flowery language is cleared up and the legacy section is rewritten to include the scholarly analysis of him. Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

An example of the type of commentary I would look for: http://caliber.ucpress.net/doi/pdfplus/10.1525/nr.2010.13.3.34

[9]

[10]

[11] This is the kind of stuff i might be looking for Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I did not intend my comments to be interpreted as "flak". In fact, I welcome your review and thank you for your interest. I mostly just want to understand your thoughts and begin a dialogue, because although everybody seems to agree this is a "good" article, these issues will come up if and when the article is nominated for "featured" status.

I think I understand what you are saying about "flowery" language. I read a lot of language of this style, and this might be more a matter of opinion and taste, than correctness, but if any editor thinks the language is too flowery, this is easily changed.

I also think I understand your concerns about the "legacy" and non-biographic sections. (But as to the naming of the "legacy" section, I think that is in line with many other biographical articles on Wikipedia which have "legacy" sections. For example, see John Calvin, Walter Huber, John Knox, Gregory of Nazianzus, and many other featured articles.) I think what you'd like to see is a mini-history of Joseph Smith-related criticism, and I don't disagree. But I would not use the "criticism" sub-article as a model. I'm not at all happy with the "criticism" sub-article, which is not even really about Joseph Smith-related criticism. It's more a simple repository for factoids about Joseph Smith that some authors think are more or less embarrassing. To the extent these facts and trivia are treated extensively in the literature, they are indeed included in the article. What I think you are looking for is something quite different: a brief history of Joseph Smith-related criticism through the ages, from Eber Dudley Howe to the Tanners.

The challenge in creating a brief Joseph Smith-related criticism section, though, is to make it sufficiently brief. We would have to cover the most notable critics of Smith, such as Howe, the Tanners, and a few others, without spending too much precious space. You included a few links as examples of what you would like to see included. The first one is Lawrence Foster's book, which is already cited in this article. I don't really see Foster's work as a criticism, though, as much as a simple historical analysis. Lawrence was just interpreting the historical record in a neutral, dispassionate way like any good historian. You also cite Woodbridge Riley's biography, which I don't think is cited here, but I also don't see Riley's biography as a criticism: it was more a psychohistory. In the case of Riley, I consider it to be somewhat obsolete, now far surpassed by Brodie's psychohistory which is cited extensively in the article. I've never seen Ainsworth's 1972 essay before, but it also appears to be a simple brief overview history, rather than a criticism. Or maybe I don't understand the use of these articles that you envision.

Pierce's 1899 article is also new to me, but his topic, the Spaulding Manuscript--is well known. The Spaulding theory was discredited and is no longer an extant Smith criticism among mainstream scholars, but if we include a brief history of Smith-related criticism, we will indeed have to include the Spaulding theory, which originated with Howe and lasted to the mid-20th century. There are probably better sources than Pierce for this, though. Brodie contains a really good history of the Spaulding theory.

On the issue of the complex sentence, I agree it should be better cited. I'll see what can be done.

COGDEN 02:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I've changed both examples of what Weaponbb7 considered "flowery language" above. Are there any other specific problems in matters of style?--John Foxe (talk) 18:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Update

There's a Second Opinion request and two reviews, and there appears to have been no activity on the GA Review for over a month. Who is actually doing the review? And is a Second Opinion still requested? Speed is not the priority in a GA Review, and if the review is still in progress that is fine, though an update comment would be useful at this point. SilkTork *^YES! 16:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The current status of the review is somewhat up in the air. As the submitter, I will contact the interested parties (particularly, the reviewers) and try to get some closure on this review in the next couple days. ...comments? ~BFizz 17:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't mean any offense, but when Weaponbb wrote,

"This article has some severe flaws with bias as it lacks critical commentary of this figure."

I was left wondering if he had read the right article. This whole article is nothing but a critical commentary.

Polygamist? treasure-hunter? Exorcist? Tried as disorderly? Power-grabbing? Military leader in retreat? "Dirty"? "Nasty"? Poor financial oversight? Intimidating? Pillaging? Media suppressor?

And that's all in the first half of the article! You can believe all that tripe, but surely you can't suggest the article lacks critical commentary. If that's praise, I'd hate to see what criticism is.

Is there anyone here that would argue that the majority of the references sources are not critics of Joseph? The only one I can find who is not cynically critical in their research is Bushman, and his writings were purposely aimed at finding Joseph's flaws. So Brodie gets to write, fair. And LDS Church Historians are excluded based on a sensitivity to POV, arguably fair. But for anyone to then suggest the article is not critical enough after all that?

My input is that this article has a strong structurally negative bias. I don't lay the fault so much with the contributors, as much as the framework of sources on which Joseph Smith's life has been myopically defined. Until the 1970s, the only academics who seemed to be writing (the consensus here is often that, unfortunately, Brodie is the best we have) about Joseph Smith had strong negative biases. And when you then take out the acceptance of LDS sources it is not surprising the article reads more like an expose'.

So my two bits. This article may be on hold for a few years until it can be fundamentally reworked. No, I do not expect it to look like a Mormon pamphlet. But, yes, I expect it to go back to the drawing board until there are more reliable historians (not merely anti-Mormon or even pro-Mormon cynics) who are not writing because they have an axe to grind. The problem is not the contributors, the problem is not the good will to balance this based on the evidence. The problem, I think, is with the very limited availability of reliable AND unbiased research.

Fawn Brodie was actually right when she wrote, "No man knows my history." And as Nibley referred to her research, "No, Ma'am, that's not history."

Feel free to slag a great religious leader, just take a little time before you do to notice the dove on top of the discussion page.

Canadiandy1 (talk) 06:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

Canadiandy, just because a writer is non-Mormon, that doesn't mean they have an "axe to grind" against Mormons. There's an "us versus them" mentality that many Mormons share, that is a hangover from persecutions in the 1800s. Many Mormons tend to suspect the motives of anyone writing about Mormonism who isn't a firm believer.

I don't know what "reliable historians" you have in mind that would surpass Bushman, Brodie, Quinn, Compton, Hill and Hill, Bloom, Brooke, Hullinger, Marquardt, Morgan, Widmer, Vogel, Van Wagoner, Walker, George Smith, Shipps, Remini, and Prince. These scholars all cite each other, and everybody cites them. They are all mainstream, and none of them is a polemical writer out to bash Mormons. In fact, many of them are devout Mormons, and a few others are what you might call "lapsed" Mormons who still identify with the religion. Several of them have no religious ties to Mormonism at all, but how can we hold that against them? We don't expect that only the Amish can can write neutral academic books about the Amish, or that only Jehovah's Witnesses can write neutral academic books about Jehovah's Witnesses. COGDEN 20:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

COgden,

Unfair. I never said that all non-Mormon writers have an axe to grind. But I do think that the majority of evidence written about Joseph Smith before the 1970s was inherently based in a 'love him/hate him' paradigm. Neither do I "...suspect the motives of anyone writing about Mormonism who isn't a firm believer." Your words, not mine. It was Charles Dickens who wrote,

"But I went on board their ship to bear testimony against them if they deserved it, as I fully believed they would; to my great astonishment, they did not deserve it; and my predispositions and tendencies must not affect me as an honest witness, I went over the Amazon's side, feeling it impossible to deny that, so far, some remarkable influence had produced a remarkable result, which better-known influences have often missed."

Last I checked Dickens was not a Mormon.

But forgive me a fair academic skepticism when I ask individuals writing on Joseph Smith the following;

1. What is your motivation in writing on Joseph Smith? 2. What will you use as your evidences and sources? 3. When you come across unproven or speculative evidences, how will you address them?

As an example, my non-Mormon father is in the process of writing a book on the history of Louis Riel. I asked him why, as there is no family/religious/historical connection whatsoever, he would write on such a topic. His reason is that since Riel was a polarizing figure, most of the histories he has read are founded in a positive or negative bias. As he is not on either side of the history he feels he would make a better writer on the topic for that very reason.

I think this is a perfect parallel to the problem with this article. Joseph Smith researchers may attempt neutrality, but their sources are largely drawn from wildly biased sources (those who loved him enough to write, or those who hated him enough to write). And no, I don't even blame the Mormon haters for this paradox. It's not a question of who's right and wrong, it's a question of when are we going to look for better sources that the 'poisoned tree' we've been eating from for so long.

One of the discussions we (I, sorry) debated for a long time related to the number of wives Joseph Smith was purported to have had. While DNA testing has yet to prove a single offspring from Joseph (except through Emma) the old records are given preferred treatment. I don't expect people to agree with my religious beliefs, I do expect the historians and contributors here to have the courage to admit that not enough is truly 'known' about Joseph to fly this article as an accurate depiction (Good Article) of who Joseph Smith was. It seems amazingly Quixotic to do so.

You make the point that several "scholars all cite each other, and everybody cites them." I suspect if we sat them down and asked them if they were happy with the quality of evidence available to them they would say pretty much what I'm saying here, It's too bad Joseph Smith was such a polarizing figure, because it's hard to know which, of any of the early chroniclers can be trusted. And those that are worth their salt would be saying something like, we're just scratching the surface of Joseph Smith, the only thing Brodie got right is when she quoted Smith's own words, "No man knows [his] history."

Hey, look. A windmill.

Canadiandy1 (talk) 01:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

Never known the GA review process of an article to take this long. I think they should hurry up and make the decision. Although personally, I think there's still work to be done for it can be passed, its best if they make their judgement on this and what needs to be done sooner rather than later. Any activity on the page is dead, possibly because certain individuals have scared people off from editing it. Routerone (talk) 14:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Canadiandy, you are going to have to be specific about what primary source factual information about Joseph Smith you think is "biased" against him. We actually shouldn't really care much about the primary sources when we have such comprehensive and well-regarded recent secondary sources. We can't go "over the heads" of secondary sources to provide our own spin on the primary sources. The recent secondary sources like Bushman, Brodie, and all the other scholars have already made determinations on primary source reliability and we can't substitute our judgment for theirs.

Frankly, though, the majority of the information that these recent scholars based their writings on was written by Joseph Smith's closest and greatest admirers, including his scribes and historians, close friends, his wife and family, the three witnesses of the golden plates, etc., who had the greatest first-hand access to Smith and thus were in the best position to know the facts. The secondary sources have recognized the reliability of a very small number of hostile primary sources (e.g., Willard Chase, Isaac Hale), in part because they agree with other sources or have other indicia of reliability. But we'll leave such primary source reliability issues to the peer-reviewed scholars.

I totally disagree with you that historians are basically ignorant about Smith's life. We know an incredible amount of information about Smith. Smith made sure of that. From early-on, he was very interested in preserving his history. We know far more about him than most historical figures of his era. When Brodie noted Smith's statement that "[n]o man knows my history", it was 1945. It was not because knowing Smith's history is impossible--it was because in 1945 the existing histories of Joseph Smith written by both Mormons and anti-Mormons had only a very loose connection to what historians consider to be reliable history. In 1945, there was no such thing as neutral academic Mormon studies. Brodie saw her job as an attempt to rectify that by producing the first modern academic Smith biography. COGDEN 03:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Since neither reviewer promoted the article to GA status (and both seem to have retired...) I've marked this as a failed nomination. ...comments? ~BFizz 01:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Not only that, it seems that Weaponbb7's account was taken over by a Nazi meat puppet (I'm not joking). I hope that never happens to my account. Now he's User:ResidentAnthropologist.

The article could probably just be re-nominated right away. We've made a lot of edits addressing all the above issues, and even before those edits, Gosox seemed to be inclined to pass it. I think Weaponbb7's primary concern that the article is too pro-Mormon is unreasonable, and baffling to anyone familiar with the mainstream secular academic sources on which this article is based, or anyone who has read the decidedly apologetic Brittanica article on Joseph Smith written by Richard Bushman. It's unfortunate that Weaponbb7 didn't provide us with more information on his views, because I'm sure there are other editors like him. He may have a unique perspective as (apparently) an anthropologist with an interest in the "anti-cult" movement. I'd like to know if he envisions this article reading more like the Raëlian beliefs and practices article for example, which has been promoted to good article status. I think the Raëlism article is reasonably neutral under the circumstances, but I don't see how it is more neutral than this article.

But still, is there anything we could do to further improve neutrality? We're already far more neutral than Brittanica, but how do we get to the point where no angry Mormon or anti-cultist has a rational leg to stand on to attack the article's neutrality? COGDEN 01:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Tao2911 changes

Because few here will accuse me of being pro-Mormon, I have taken the liberty to revert a number of changes made by Tao2911. Tao did not introduce any alternate citations for his changes but simply rewrote sentences based on his own notions of NPOV. I'd be happy to discuss his proposals here if anyone's interested.--John Foxe (talk) 19:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I stand by each of my changes. If you wish to discuss them, by all means, bring them separately here, and I can show you why the versions you revert to are not neutral or accurate to SOURCES. Please do not simply revert all of my changes, or you risk being accused of edit warring.Tao2911 (talk) 19:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll be glad to do that. Here's the first: you've changed the phrase that said that Joseph Smith "strongly opposed slavery" to "would come to oppose slavery." In the citation, Bushman says, "As Joseph began to take positions on national issues, he came out strongly against slavery." (289)--John Foxe (talk) 20:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The passage and source read before that there was an essay "published over his name" in favor of slavery - this doesn't mean anything in our language. Reviewing footnotes, it seemed clear that what was meant was "under" his name, which means simply he wrote it (unless there is some dispute, which would then need further explication). He clearly later changed this view. In other words, he "came to oppose slavery." Simple English, friend. In addition, "strongly" here is not NPOV, since the strength of this stance is questionable in context, not to mention according to footnote that he continued to oppose abolition.Tao2911 (talk) 20:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

My argument is that Bushman says Smith "strongly opposed slavery," and you've changed that phrase without a hint of a basis beyond your own sensibility. Bushman trumps your notions of NPOV unless you can come up with a source that disputes him. I don't see the footnote in which Smith is said to have opposed abolition. Smith is recorded as having advised manumission: "set them free, educate them and give them their equal rights." (516)

The phrase "published over his name" is a little old-fashioned (we usually put names at the top, rather than at the bottom, of articles), but it's perfectly good English. Try googling it.--John Foxe (talk) 21:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say that except for a brief period in the late 1830s, Smith was strongly against slavery, and I think that is the essence of what Bushman and Hill said. That's not to minimize his flirtation, beginning in 1836 and possibly for a few years thereafter, with the idea that slavery was instituted by God, and only a decree by God (not politicians) could abolish it. But both before and after 1836-38, his view was decidedly otherwise. It is not quite accurate to say that he would "come to oppose slavery," because he earlier opposed slavery in 1833, and opposed slavery again by at least 1842. It would be more accurate to say that during the late 1830s, he briefly adopted an anti-abolitionist view, but otherwise his view was strongly anti-slavery. COGDEN 21:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Foxe, don't argue in favor of antiquated speech - why would you argue in favor of not just saying simply that "he wrote"? I don't know his stance - I simply reviewed this article per its status as possible "Good Article" and I found a number of glaring peculiarities, questionable instances of non-neutral POV, and inconsistencies.

cogden, by your own explanation here, he wrote in favor of slavery. He later changed this opinion. He therefor "came to oppose it." Again, perhaps that view grew in increasing strength, but to say that God favored it, so he did to, is hardly a ringing critique of the practice. Don't add "strongly." I find it to be biased - no matter sources, which we are encouraged to rephrase to make for better reading in view of all sources, context. Likewise with the clear obfuscation regarding his having written in favor of slavery. You all agree he did so. I agree he changed this position. That is what passage now says. Let it ride.Tao2911 (talk) 22:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

...which we are encouraged to rephrase... [Citation needed]. If a reliable source says 'strongly', then it's generally safe for us to also say 'strongly'. However, I do understand the concern that the source (Bushman, in this case) had a timeline context, while the article presents the view outside the timeline.

“ Except for a pro-slavery essay published over his name in 1836, Smith strongly opposed slavery. ”

The article text as it stands seems to be satisfactorily NPOV, good prose, and true to the sources. "Published over his name" is a bit antiquated and despite my tongue-in-cheek request for citation, I agree that "he wrote" is better in this case. ...comments? ~BFizz 23:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that "he wrote" is probably better, and I don't really oppose deleting the word "strongly". My point with regard to saying he "came to oppose" slavery is that it implies that he originally supported slavery, and then he gradually came to adopt abolitionism. It's actually more complicated than that: In time period 1, circa 1833, he opposed slavery. In time period 2, from 1836 to at least 1838, he opposed abolition. In time period 3, from at least 1842 onward, he supported abolition and opposed slavery. However, it goes beyond the sources to say that in period 1 he was an abolitionist. (It's possible to have opposed slavery without being an abolitionist.) It also goes beyond the sources to say, in period 2, that he favored or encouraged slavery. (All we know is that he opposed abolition.) If there is some way that we can take all this into consideration, and still state this point as succinctly as the present language, I'm in favor of it. COGDEN 03:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I've made a few edits in response to this revert. Each individual edit of mine has its own explanation. I would be happy to talk any of them over on the talk page as necessary. Note that I did not simply re-revert, but rather, in some cases, made adjustments/improvements. ...comments? ~BFizz 07:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

John Foxe reverts

I'd just like to request that Foxe simply discuss individual points here, as agreed, before reverting to earlier contested versions of page. I explained with labels each of my edits carefully; if they are contested, please say so now here. Foxe has reached, or is close to, technical definition of edit war here, and no one wants be blocked.Tao2911 (talk) 22:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Its his authority to revert absolutely everything done to this page. He is the article arbitrator. Routerone (talk) 22:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up Routerone. I just thought John Foxe was a contributor. Can you explain where I can go to learn more about this 'arbitrator' role? The term is new to me. Oh yeah, while Tao is clearly not pro-Smith, I tend to trust his judgment based on his respect for neutral tone and religious sensitivity at the same time. I too would rather see this thing bare bones and neutral than a little kind and a whole lot offensive. He and I may not agree on religion, but I haven't read anything by him yet that suggests he is insensitive to our faith.

173.180.112.66 (talk) 00:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

Where is this stated, please, that arbitrators are free from basic wiki etiquette? And why does he agree to discuss individual changes above, before reverting? Likewise, he may be arbitrator, but instances like using "published over his name" instead of "he wrote", and treating the word "prophet" as an objective category like "lawyer", show that no one has a corner on Wiki perfection or omniscience.Tao2911 (talk) 22:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Tao2911, warning editors not to edit war (it takes two to tango, not one person warring and the other not) in edit summaries like this, and then three minutes later make this edit (without the discussion on the talk page you demanded), shows a need on your part to carefully read WP:EW. It's not just about getting the other to violate the 3RR... Doc9871 (talk) 23:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I suspect Tao is a newcomer. Albeit a sharp, intellectual, newcomer, but I suggest not biting. He's just frustrated as would be any newcomer to this article. Please show a little courtesy.

173.180.112.66 (talk) 00:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

Biting. Really? He's been here for almost two years; you have not even been here for a month. Are you not a "newcomer"? I hope that question isn't too "biting". Cheers ;> Doc9871 (talk) 00:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I sense some ill will here, Doc. Even though I've been off and on in the discussions here for several months I accept the label newcomer. I meant absolutely no disrespect when I referred to Tao that way, in fact I was coming to his defense. I was not aware of the fact he had been here for years and I noticed his user page was quite short and that is why I wrote I "suspected" he was a newcomer and to be nice. I will readily admit I was wrong. I notice your evil wink emoticon so I will assume you were merely giving a polite ribbing.

Canadiandy1 (talk) 04:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

• canadiandy has been here longer than a month; he has trouble logging in, so it seems as if he posts under different IP accounts. Hard to track his movements. Duke53 | ^Talk 03:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for sticking up for me Duke.

Canadiandy1 (talk) 04:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

Good assumption on the emoticon - and I'm glad to know you've been here longer than a month. No ill will towards you at all, Canadiandy1. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 05:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Joseph Smith, prophet?

One of Tao's changes was very necessary, and I'm having problems finding the old discussion in the archive about it. Currently, the article states that Smith was a prophet. That's not a description that can be treated as a fact: most non-Mormons would dispute it, and many people would dispute that any prophets exist at all. I thought we had agreed on a softer wording for that.—Kww(talk) 00:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

You might be looking for Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr./Archive 15#LDS POV? for the discussion. Alanraywiki (talk) 01:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for getting back on topic. I came here because I see edit-warring problems - sticking to productive discussion on what is causing the problems to reach consensus is exactly what is needed. I have to agree on Kww's logic on the "prophet=fact" argument as well... Doc9871 (talk) 00:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

What's wrong with, "Is considered be the prophet by/to The Mormons": or something along those lines? It's just a suggestion... Doc9871 (talk) 00:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

This issue has been discussed several times before, and the last time, there appeared to be a consensus that using the term prophet was not an advocation that he actually had supernatural abilities, but just an indication of his role within the religion. Nobody really disputes the statement that Muhammad was the prophet of Islam, that Moses was a prophet of Judaism, or that Zoroaster was the prophet of Zoroastrianism. COGDEN 06:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I agree with COgden on this one. I think the "of the LDS movement" should be implicit clarification enough. Most of the articles in Category:Prophets of the Hebrew Bible use a similar implicit clarification, "in the Hebrew Bible", if any at all. Similar implicit clarifiers are in articles like Adam and Zoroaster (which COgden just mentioned). --FyzixFighter (talk) 06:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I also agree with the "prophet+context=status" sentiment, as I clearly expressed in the archived discussion that Alan linked. ...comments? ~BFizz 07:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I, also, thought that was the latest consensus - that WP states he is a prophet is not going to convince anyone that prophets really exist and that this person did, in fact, talk to God. "Prophet", by it's very nature, requires you to believe in the dogma in the first place. Padillah (talk) 10:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Even Moses gets "was, according to the Hebrew Bible, a religious leader, lawgiver, and prophet". Context isn't enough, and I'm surprised at the assertion. There's no such thing as a prophet. To state that Smith was a prophet is akin to stating he was an elf. " ... prophet of the LDS movement ..." still implies that he actually was a prophet.—Kww(talk) 14:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Exactly, and if you choose to believe that elves exist and Smith was one then that's your belief system, have at it. Why qualify something that, by it's very nature, is based on belief? Are you trying to tell me that some readers belief systems are so fragile that mis-reading a Wikipedia article will change their world view? I find that highly unlikely. To further your example, Tasslehoff Burrfoot is referred to as a "...fictional character of the kender race...", Flint Fireforge is a "...fictional dwarf character...", and Laurana Kanan is "...the youngest child of the elf king Solostaran..." Not one goes out of it's way to ensure that the reader understand the race is fictional. Whether "prophets" are real should be left to the article on Prophets, not each individual article about each individual person. By definition, fictional or faith-based concepts are subjective based on the reader. There are people that don't believe in God, should we make every reference in this article about "the alleged God"? (don't get any bright ideas, Foxe :) ). You are also correct in thinking context has nothing to do with it, the concept of "prophet" is subjective by it's very nature and should need no qualifying. Padillah (talk) 15:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

First lines of a few more articles:

• Nathan (prophet): Nathan the Prophet (fl. c. 1000 BC) was a court prophet who lived in the time of King David and Queen Bathsheba.

• Micaiah: Micaiah son of Imlah is a prophet in the Hebrew Bible.

• Micah (prophet): Micah the titular prophet of the Book of Micah, also called "The Morasthite". He is not the same as another prophet, Micaiah son of Imlah. He is counted among the minor prophets in the Tanakh (Old Testament).

Context is enough. It seems natural for a variety of Wikipedians to write this way without batting an eye. Nobody is going to read the statement that "so and so is a prophet of ___" and suddenly think, "oh! Wikipedia says I should believe this person is a prophet!" Rather, they will think, "oh, this person is considered a prophet by believers in / adherents of ___". It's natural modern English usage of the word, imho. ...comments? ~BFizz 15:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not take the point of view that prophets exist. Your argument is roughly "it's OK to say it because everyone will know that we don't really mean it." If the plain sense of a sentence is that something is a fact, then that sentence should actually be factual.—Kww(talk) 15:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Nor should Wikipedia take the point of view that prophets do not exist. Wikipedia should take the point of view that some people believe that prophets exist. While Padillah states that context is unimportant, I disagree. I feel that "prophet of [context]" is a very clear and natural way to indicate who believes that this person is a prophet. The sentence is factual because it says what it means; its meaning is clear to any reader. We're writing readable prose for human beings, not boolean expressions for machines. Padillah had a good point with "the alleged God". See also WP:ALLEGED. ...comments? ~BFizz 15:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy with any phrasing that includes something like "considered to be". Padillah's view doesn't distinguish between "leader of the <x>", which is probably factually true, and "prophet of the <x>", which could never be presented as factually true. As for the alleged existence of other aspects of the religion, that generally relies on external qualifiers, such as "Smith announced that an angel had given him a book of golden plates", as opposed to "Angels gave a book of golden plates to Smith." Surely you wouldn't accept the latter based on a contextual argument, would you?—Kww(talk) 15:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The "leader of" vs "prophet of" was discussed a little while ago (well, it was brought up during a discussion, much like this one) as well as the "founder of" and "Prophet of" wrinkles. I beg to differ that "prophet of x" could never be factually true. I suppose I did over-step when I dismissed context too easily, a person's status as "prophet of x" is falsifiable. I cannot claim to be "prophet of the LDS church", it wouldn't work. Because prophet depends on belief, and no one believes in me, so that's out the window. It should be a matter of fact that the Pope is a prophet of the Catholic church. That is a factual statement... inasmuch as you believe in the Catholic church. So that's why we're saying (and I'm now back to saying, sorry for the sojourn) context is important. How is considering Joseph Smith the prophet of the LDS church any different than considering the Pope to be a prophet of the Catholic church? It's not within the scope of this article to define the position or existence of prophets. To me this is like going on a snipe hunt - it's not a question of snipes existing or not, I claim to be hunting them. That is my professed state of being. Padillah (talk) 16:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Kww, you are correct, the "angels gave..." sentence is typically not acceptable. But in that case, you are describing a supernatural event. In this case, we are applying a label or title to a person. I'm glad that Padillah now agrees that context is important. Now, I'm not entirely opposed to rephrasing to include "considered to be", but for this case, I feel that adding in the fact that "believers believe" is redundant and adds no value to the statement. ...comments? ~BFizz 16:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

There's no real difference between saying that someone has supernatural powers and describing a supernatural event. As for the "Pope" argument, I can respect that "prophet" is a title within the LDS church, and could live with a phrasing that acknowledged that title, just as I cannot dispute that "Pope" can be given as a factual description of someone's role within the Roman Catholic church. To say that someone is a prophet is to state that he is able to see the future and generally ascribes him the ability to communicate directly with supernatural beings. That's not a description that can be made as a bald statement of fact.—Kww(talk) 20:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

This puts us right back at the "prophet" vs. "Prophet" debate again. I thought we decided to leave the reference to the position and title within the organization ("Smith held the title of Prophet...") Please correct me if I'm mistaken. I still hold that it should be left to the reader if they believe in prophets or not but referencing the title is correct and avoids the issue altogether. Padillah (talk) 20:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

That's the conclusion a previous discussion came to. I think that conclusion was incorrect.—Kww(talk) 20:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Then I think I'm confused. I thought you just said you could "live with a phrasing that acknowledged that title". Are you now saying you can't? Padillah (talk) 20:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Nope, I read your statement backwards. Let me look over the archives again.—Kww(talk) 20:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks to me like that got bogged down in the discussion of whether the various churches can be considered a single organization that has titles.—Kww(talk) 20:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Kww, this is not a do-or-die point for me, but I think adding the words "considered to be" is a little strange, and certainly unnecessary. Use of the term prophet is no different from use of the terms shaman, witch doctor, fortune-teller, priest, or oracle. Wouldn't it be a little strange to read that "Ughru was considered to be a shaman by the Zelgnu tribe"? Or that "Madame Lenormand was considered to be a fortune teller by superstitious Parisians." Isn't it much better to say that "Ughru was the shaman of Zelgnu" and "Madame Lenormand was a Parisian fortune-teller"? I think it's obvious to the audience that these statements do not imply the authenticity of shamanism or fortune-telling, any more than the statement that Smith/Muhammad/Zoroaster was the prophet of the Latter Day Saint movement/Islam/Zoroastrianism implies the existence of supernatural communication with God. COGDEN 22:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's strange at all. Lenormand claimed to be a fortune teller, Ughru was treated as, held the role of, or considered to be a shaman. I'm actually more tolerant of the fortune-teller than the others, because "fortune-telling" normally includes the case of being a fraud as well as the case of being an actual seer.—Kww(talk) 23:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Why does fortune-teller include the potential role of a fraud, while shaman and prophet do not? Indeed, there's such a thing as a "false prophet". The existence of prophets who are "false" proves that a prophet can be just as non-supernatural as a fraudulent fortune-teller. COGDEN 01:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Note that with "prophet", we typically use "false prophet" to distinguish someone designate someone that claims to be a prophet but is not. That supports my view that by simply describing Smith as a "prophet", we are stating that he indeed possesses the power of prophecy and has a connection to the supernatural. I don't think it would be reasonable to explicitly state "false prophet" in the case of Smith, either: I don't think that Wikipedia should take a stand one way or the other.—Kww(talk) 03:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I know it sounds cray, but what about wiki-linking prophet in the opening sentence, "Joseph Smith, Jr. (December 23, 1805 – June 27, 1844) was the founder and prophet of the Latter Day Saint movement." Readers would be directed to this page, which explains what a prophet is and isn't. No need to determine anything else concerning "Smith" and "prophet" (it's an easy way out)? "Bueller? Bueller?" Doc9871 (talk) 05:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

P.S. - I've made the change - this should be reverted (and then discussed) if it is deemed inappropriate by any editor involved in this discussion (esp), or any other editor. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 06:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:EGG. Some people will be reading this and not have the cool plug-ins that we have... or want to click-through to a different article just to understand this article. @Kww, thanks for looking that up... A question I now have is: if we say "Claimed" we have to elaborate on who "claims" this, so who claims this? Can he be a prophet of a "movement"? Do we have to enumerate which churches claim he is a prophet? Do we simply leave it at Smith claimed to be a prophet? But then how does that flow into the lead? Padillah (talk) 13:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, we don't need the "claimed." Smith did so claim; but other individuals and churches in the movement did too. Doc9871 has the right idea.

At the risk of stimulating an argument over a single letter, I've added an "a" before prophet. Mormonism has many prophets, including currently, Thomas S. Monson.--John Foxe (talk) 14:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikilink prophet, yes. Claimed, no. The sentence works for me with or without the "a". As for the question, "Can he be a prophet of a 'movement'?" Yes. Can Abraham be a patriarch to Christianity and Islam alike? It's both a clarification of belief and declaration of status among believers. Smith certainly intended to be a prophet of one unified denomination, but it didn't quite pan out that way. ...comments? ~BFizz 15:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no issue with "a" rather than "the", but we might want to say "the founding prophet" rather than the more belabored "the founder and a prophet". COGDEN 19:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't really care whether the wording is that Joseph was a prophet, believed to be a prophet or whatever else the focus is here. What I disagree with is the term that he is the 'founder' of the LDS movement. This disregards the belief by most Latter-Day Saints that it was Christ who established his Church through Joseph Smith. Perhaps a rewrite like, "To members within the Latter-Day Saint movement, Joseph Smith was a prophet through whom Jesus Christ established his Church." It seems respectful, neutral, and hopefully succinct.

Similarly, the phrase, "... he founded a church in western New York, claiming it to be a restoration of early Christianity." Would be better written, "...he organized in western New York a church that he claimed was a restoration of the early Christian church."

Again, this reflects the position that Joseph Smith believed he was organizing the Church under the direction of Jesus Christ himself. It also avoids the vague term "early Christianity" which is indistinct in scope and meaning. (i.e. the followers of Christ at the Nicene Council could be seen as part of early Christianity, but Smith would clearly suggest the Church's authority was no longer in force many years before that time.Canadiandy1 (talk) 20:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

I changed the lead a tad. It probably won't satisfy you much, but it's an honest try on my part anyway. I think most founders of Protestant churches, say Luther or Wesley, would also argue that the real founder of their church was Christ. Wesley was even something of a restorationist. I don't understand how "early Christian church" differs from "early Christianity."--John Foxe (talk) 22:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, John. One slight correction, from my research Luther did not believe Christ was the founder of his Church (unless you are referring to the Catholic Church which he worked passionately to reform). While Luther helped in the formation of a new religious Order (based in most ways upon the Catholic practices), the Lutheran Church did not seem to have been fully organized until some years later (yes Mormons often recognize Luther's inspiration) footsteps. And yes, I would welcome correction from any Lutherans as I am no expert here. In fact the term 'Lutheran' was a derogatory one as it was the practice of the Catholic Church of the day to name apostate splinter groups after their leader. Similar to how the term 'Mormon' was attributed to the LDS members. Likewise, Wesley (another man many LDS believe to have been inspired) remained an Anglican and never assumed an organized Church through his stewardship. But Joseph Smith recognized a stewardship in not merely shaping or reforming, but in acting as a chief steward (so to speak) in Christ's restoration of The Church of Jesus Christ [of Latter-Day Saints] and this makes him somewhat unique.

In response to your question about how "early Christian church" differs from "early Christianity." The early Christian Church is seen by Latter-Day Saints as the organization which existed when Christ was upon the earth (We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth - Article of Faith 6)and for a short season after. In essence, the apostles continued to exercise their authority but based on a lack of finding 'quorum' they were unable to function as a quorum and so the presiding authority was lost. This does not mean the LDS Church refutes the Catholic claim to apostolic succession, merely that the authority was eventually no longer recognized by Christ (likely at the death of the last of the New Testament apostles but that is my own speculation). The term 'Early Christianity' on the other hand seems to reflect the body and beliefs of followers of Christ during an earlier period which might span hundreds of years (over 300 years according to Wikipedia). Based on Smith's writings it would be absurd to think he was restoring the Church as it existed at the Nicene Council. So the term Early Church is preferable to Early Christianity. The Church Smith restored, we believe, was that which existed closer to c. 30 not c. 325.

Thanks again, John. Hoping we can find some better will in the future.Canadiandy1 (talk) 02:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

I stopped talking for a day to try and clear my head, but still have the same fundamental objection. No one is actually a prophet. They don't exist. No Wikipedia article should assert that any person is one without a qualifier.—Kww(talk) 22:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

On what rational ground do you declare that prophets don't exist?--John Foxe (talk) 23:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

People that can see the future and have direct contact with supernatural beings? I think the onus would be on you to demonstrate that they did. That always is the problem with "neutrality": it's hard for people that believe in the existence of prophets to see that an article is biased towards their existence, and it's why this kind of language gets scattered all over Wikipedia. Regardless of whether you agree with my assertion, I think you have to recognize that this is a secular encyclopedia, and we do not treat religious beliefs as fact. We shouldn't insult or deride them, but we don't treat them a fact, either.—Kww(talk) 23:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

With respect, Kww, yours is not a proper argument. If you tell me there's no God, and I ask you for proof, you can't respond that the burden's on me to prove that He does exist. I can't prove that prophets exist, and you can't prove that they don't.--John Foxe (talk) 14:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Kww.

I agree with you that WP should not be identifying anyone as a prophet full-stop. That approaches bias. I have argued here that while it is my belief he was, that is not fair to neutral journalism. I prefer the statement should read that the Latter-Day Saints believed him to be a prophet. But even better I would argue that he is identified by the LDS (and I believe the RLDS) people as a 'Prophet' (capital 'P'). For us the title 'Prophet' is an actual office title within the High Priesthood. And common sensibility allows that terms like, Reverend, Dean, Bishop, Pope, and even King are appropriate, and so is the title (not qualifier) 'Prophet.'

Perhaps it could read:

"Joseph Smith, Jr. (December 23, 1805 – June 27, 1844) was the first Prophet (an office of Church Priesthood) of the Latter Day Saint movement."

I still prefer the word 'faith' as opposed to 'movement', but that's for another discussion.

Hope this helps.

Canadiandy1 (talk) 03:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

Kww, I understand what you are saying (sort of). However, the concept of a "prophet" certainly exists (and has for millennium and beyond); WP has an article on it for that reason. It needs improvement, but it's a good read :> We don't have to wax philosophical about it when it's linkable, right?. Verifiability, not truth, n'est pas? Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 08:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, We need to "flip this coin" (make a decision). My order of acceptance is: 1) "prophet" is fine with me, the existence question is, and should be, left up to the reader. 2) "Prophet" with explanation of title, this is factual, albeit misleading. 3) "believed to be a prophet" is OK I suppose but it's clunky and redundant (IMHO). I'll take a look at Foxe and Canadiandy's discussion in a second. Padillah (talk) 12:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy with either 2 or 3.—Kww(talk) 14:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Kww and Canadiandy1, you are assuming that use of the word prophet as it appears in this article is "without qualification". But it isn't. The qualification is that he is the "prophet of the Latter Day Saint movement". This is no different from saying, "within the Latter Day Saint movement, Smith was a prophet" or "according to the Latter Day Saint movement, Smith was a prophet". But there's no reason to be that wordy here. Everyone knows that's what we mean by "prophet of the Latter Day Saint movement".

Also, saying that Smith was a "prophet of the Latter Day Saint movement" is no different from saying that Zoroaster was an "ancient Iranian" prophet, or that Elijah was a Biblical prophet. We are specifying the context in which they are considered a prophet, and thus the statement is not unqualified. There is no need to triple or quadruple the word count by saying that "Zoroaster was considered by ancient Iranians to be a prophet," or "Elijah is considered by Bible believers to be a prophet". Similarly, Wikipedia articles refer to Aphrodite as a "Greek goddess". The word "Greek" is the context and qualification, and this would be equivalent to calling Smith a "Mormon prophet"--neither statement is an unqualified endorsement of authentic supernatural godhood or prophecy.

As to Canadiandy1's argument that Smith cannot be considered the "founder" of the Latter Day Saint movement, you ought to know that Smith considered himself to be the founder of the Latter Day Saint faith. In his 1842 Wentworth letter, he said, "I have written the following sketch of the rise, progress, persecution, and faith of the Latter-Day Saints, of which I have the honor, under God, of being the founder." COGDEN 18:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Your argument neglects the nature of "prophet". Some things are objectively demonstrable, a person could be the "leader of the Latter Day Saint movement", "secretary of the Latter Day Saint movement", "editor-in-chief of a newsletter about the Latter Day Saint movement", any number of things, because no one disputes the existence of "leader", "secretary", or "editor-in-chief". "Prophet of the Latter Day Saint movement" assumes the existence of prophets. The existence of prophets is not a universal point-of-view. I certainly do not believe they exist.—Kww(talk) 18:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Then how would you distinguish referring to Aphrodite as a "Greek goddess", or referring to Mars as the "Roman god of war"? Not everyone believes in the existence of gods, so how is this different? Do you believe the Aphrodite and Mars articles are biased in favor of polytheism simply because they don't hit you over the head with an explicit "considered by" phrase? Are all the articles that refer to "Biblical prophets" or "prophets of the Old Testament" biased in favor of Judeo-Christianity on similar grounds? COGDEN 18:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer " ...worshiped by the Greeks as a goddess of ...". Depending on phrasing and context, "biblical prophet" and "prophet of the Old Testament" may or may not be acceptable. Yes, I think Wikipedia tends to have a strong bias in favor of viewing Christianity as true. Back to this particular point, if you would substitute a word in which you yourself do not believe, I think the problem becomes more obvious: I don't think you would ever countenance a sentence like "John Brown was an elf of the Grand Reformed Church" and claim that "... of the Grand Reformed Church" was sufficient context to substantiate the claim that John Brown was, in fact, an elf. That someone is considered to be a prophet by some group of people is an objective fact, being a prophet of those people is not.—Kww(talk) 19:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

If you ask me "John Brown was an elf of the Grand Reformed Church" is a perfectly acceptable statement. I can decide for myself is elves are real, that's not for the John Brown article to decide. Try this and see if it works: the label "prophet" does exist INASMUCH as there are people that claim to talk to God. Kind of like magicians - they do exist, their claim to do magic is not very supportable, but "magicians" do exist. Joseph Smith can be labeled a prophet, whether he has prophetic powers is up for debate. Padillah (talk) 19:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

What other encyclopedias say

I decided to discover what other encyclopedias use as their lead for Joseph Smith. Here are the results:

• Academic American (1997): "founder, prophet, and first president of the [LDS Church] (See Mormonism)."
• Americana (2006): "founder of the [LDS Church], usually called the Mormon Church."
• Britannica (2010): "American prophet whose writings, along with the Bible, provide the theological foundation of the [LDS Church] and other Mormon denominations."
• Compton's (2010): "founder and first leader of the [LDS Church]—more commonly called the Mormon church."
• World Book (2006): "founder and first president of the Mormon Church, officially called the [LDS Church]. Several other churches recognize him as their founder....Those who follow Smith's teachings regard Smith as a prophet of God."

So there's ammunition here for any argument made above. If someone made me Grand Poobah of this article, I would write: "founder and first leader of the [LDS Church] and other Mormon denominations. His followers regard him as a prophet of God."--John Foxe (talk) 14:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

"If someone made me Grand Poobah of this article, I would write ... " I would gladly vote for you becoming 'grand poobah' of this article. I'm in agreement with what you have written in the above paragraph. Keep up the good work ... you are doing a fabulous job here. Duke53 | ^Talk 15:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

So there's ammunition here for any argument made above. Thanks, Foxe. I feel justified in my "natural usage" and "in context" arguments for the liberal use of the word 'prophet'.

I like the Academic American version; were it not plagiarism, I would copy it. Britannica has an interesting first line that is a very different approach that I also like. One small note regarding Foxe's proposed version: it seems to exclude the Community of Christ, which is neither the LDS Church, nor considers itself a "Mormon" denomination. I'm not fond of the "first leader" title; my personal preference would be to stick with "founding prophet" at this point. The words "founder" or "founding" seem to already imply "first leader", and "prophet" also implies "leader", so that piece of information is not lost. Using the word 'prophet' is advantageous because it indicates the level of respect his followers had from him; or in other words, it indicates the level of respect he demanded from his followers based on his extraordinary claims. It's such a core part of understanding Smith's life and why he was so loved and hated that I can't imagine leaving it out of the first sentence.

As for the shift from "LDS movement" to "LDS Church and other Mormon denominations", I'm impartial. It is notable that none of these encyclopedias use the term "LDS movement", which quite possibly was coined or popularized here at Wikipedia. ...comments? ~BFizz 16:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree we should stick with Latter Day Saint movement, which is the broadest category of churches that recognize Smith as their founder and prophet. I also don't think there's a need to belabor this point in the article. Succinctness is a virtue, which is why prefer simply saying that Smith was the "founding prophet of the Latter Day Saint movement". We can leave it to the "legacy" and "impact" sections for details as to what that precisely that means. COGDEN 17:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Except that him being a prophet is not an objective fact. I wish you would stop neglecting that point.—Kww(talk) 18:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The article does not say that his prophethood is objective fact. It says that he was a "prophet of the Latter Day Saint movement", which clearly limits his status of prophethood to the theology of the Latter Day Saint movement. If the article simply said, "Joseph Smith was a prophet (period)," then there would be a problem, and I would agree with you that there would need to be a change, because such a statement would fail to provide the context in which Smith was considered to be a prophet. COGDEN 18:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

That is not sufficient context. As I say above, someone could objectively be a leader, secretary, or president, but not a "prophet." This is not an article about the religion where statements can be made in the context of the beliefs of that religion, this is an article about the real world, having the real world as its context.—Kww(talk) 18:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

As I say above I think the distinction shouldn't be that he is or is not labeled a prophet but whether prophets have the powers they claim. I like Foxe's suggestion but with the LDS movement put back in (if only to appease). Padillah (talk) 19:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

How about "founder and first leader of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Community of Christ, and other denominations of the Latter Day Saint movement. His followers regard him as a prophet of God."--John Foxe (talk) 20:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• Works for me. Duke53 | ^Talk 22:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I still don't like founder because it ignores the belief or possibility that it was God who organized the Church through Joseph. Yes, that cannot be written because it can not be proven, but neither can it be disproved therefore it should be reworded if possible. As I suggested, something like "For Latter-Day Saints, Joseph Smith was a prophet through whom Jesus Christ restored his Church" would be both neutral and accurate. I think Kww would be satisfied as this would not reflect Joseph Smith's authority, it would merely identify the common Latter-Day Saint belief about Smith's role in the restoration.

173.180.112.66 (talk) 21:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

I'd be fine with that: it identifies the existence of the belief as a fact, not the thing believed as a fact. That's a crucial distinction in my mind.—Kww(talk) 22:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, "For Latter-Day Saints, Joseph Smith was a prophet through whom Jesus Christ restored his Church". No way. The sentence (as it is currently) in the lead is fine as it is - no need to "muck it up" with this proposed edit. Is there? Really? Cheers... :> Doc9871 (talk) 08:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

@Anon, I think in this instance we have to view "founder" from a real-world viewpoint. Joseph Smith Jr. is the guy who signed the papers that incorporated the body of believers into a formal, federally recognized church. What some people believe and who's signature are on the papers may be two different things. Padillah (talk) 12:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

If you go to lds.org and search for "founder", you will see Joseph Smith's name come up as founder of the church in a number of entries from church publications. It does not seem inconsistent with the view that Jesus Christ restored His church through Smith. Alanraywiki (talk) 13:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I stuck in the sentence discussed above. Padillah eliminated mention of the LDS Church and the CoC. Maybe he can explain why. It's no big deal to me, but I thought it might head off casual edits by LDS members who want to see the name of their church in the lead.--John Foxe (talk) 15:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Joseph was responsible for the legal foundation of the Church as an entity, and in that context he is the founder of the Church. And yes, Padillah, I agree the belief and legal reality may be two different things. So I would be fine adding the fact that Joseph acted in a lawful way, organizing the Church in accordance with State law as this is a positive, but again, I am trying to show sensitivity to those who do not believe Joseph Smith to be an inspired leader. So aiming at succinct brevity I proposed, "For Latter-Day Saints, Joseph Smith was a prophet through whom Jesus Christ restored his Church". I would be just as happy having it read;

"For Latter-Day Saints, Joseph Smith was a prophet through whom Jesus Christ restored his Church. On April 6, 1830, Smith legally incorporated and organized the church in compliance with New York State laws as an incorporation with six original members and himself and Oliver Cowdery being elected as presiding Elders (New York law required 3 to 9 initial committee members and 2 elected officers)."

Oh yeah, John, in your edit I think you left the word 'the' behind. As in "the Early Christianity".

173.180.112.66 (talk) 16:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

@Foxe, I was going for brevity. There's like 6 branches of the LDS church and I don't think we need to mention each of them by name every time we say "LDS movement". This particular sentence being the lead sentence it should be akin to the quick and dirty answer you give someone that asks you on the street, "Who was Joseph Smith Jr." — "Well, he's just zis guy, you know?" Something short to answer the overriding question. If that provokes more questions then, by all means, read on.

@Canadiandy, I appreciate the desire to "let everyone play" but there must come a time when the coin is flipped and a decision made. Rather than try and integrate an entire belief system into a simple intro quote, I think it behooves us to side with falsifiable facts. This article being the powder keg that it is I would think it best to stick to the presentable stuff. And, as Alanraywiki pointed out the LDS.org website refers to him as the founder so I don't think we need to make concessions to points people aren't actually taking umbrage with. Padillah (talk) 17:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm usually on the side of brevity, Padillah, and so I'm fine with your cut. We'll see what the other folks have to say. At least I think we've gotten the word "prophet" out of contention.--John Foxe (talk) 18:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and am fine with Padillah's edit. To Canadiandy, why are we arguing with Joseph Smith, who called himself the founder of the Latter Day Saint faith? If he regarded himself as the founder, and he was the founder by any secular sense of the word, then who are we to question? I think we're talking about two different things. While Latter Day Saints don't believe that Smith founded the church of Christ in the 1st century CE, they do believe that he founded the new "Latter Day Saint" church and faith circa 1829-30 as a restoration of the extinct primitive church. COGDEN 18:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Works fine for me.—Kww(talk) 18:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a major issue with him being called a 'founder' of the Church, I just wish there was a way to differentiate between an individual who founds an organization (or church) independently as opposed to one who does so with the belief it is on behalf of, or under the believed direction of, another. I guess I can only hope interested readers will take a little time to find out what his motivation was in organizing and incorporating the Church. Anyway, you've all been fair and courteous. So I'll secede this one for now. BTW, thanks, John, for changing to "early Christian Church." That really does make the article more in line with what Smith likely thought the restoration was all about. Joseph used the term 'primitive Church' but I think 'primitive' has become a more negative term in out present context and so would be confusing.

And for Padillah and John (re: outbreaking the LDS movement), perhaps once a statement or reference has been made about the varied churches claiming authority from Joseph, we could simply use the term 'LDS.' I know it is generally a term used to identify members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, but the term shows up in the RLDS (CofC) and was clearly a term attributed to Joseph Smith who they all respect. For what it's worth, even members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints don't prefer the term as it is merely a qualifier within the Church's official name. Akin to calling Soviets 'Republicans' back when they were the USSR. As a matter of style we are used to being referred to as LDS but we can't stand the term the LDS Church. Kind of like hearing the phrase, Las Vegas, America. It just sounds wrong. But we know what you mean when you say it. In short it is likely to be equitably annoying (but not too annoying) to all of Joseph's followers. 173.180.112.66 (talk) 05:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

I find it gratifying that we got input from every part of the spectrum, no one got called a bad name, and we've arrived at something everyone seems to be able to live with. Not worthy of a barnstar but perhaps a mini-wheat or two all around. I think COGDEN's version is preferable, in part because it's shorter still and is only one sentence rather than two. --John Foxe (talk) 09:53, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Though I didn't love it at first, I do support the current revision. Re-adding the "of God" at the end wouldn't hurt; my initial impulse is to restore it but it's not a big deal. I like how this version manages to both 1) explian that adherents consider him a prohet, and 2) clearly define what the LDS movement is. Older revisions of this sentence mentioned he was a politician, could/should we squeeze that back in? ...comments? ~BFizz 00:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I think "of God" is redundant. What else would he be a prophet of? COGDEN 06:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

A google search returns interesting first hits for "prophet of", though given our context I see where you're coming from. ...comments? ~BFizz 20:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Expositor in intro

I am interested in revising the recounting of the Expositor ordeal. The wording is confusing. It currently reads: "That summer, after a local publication criticized Smith's teachings, including plural marriage, Smith and, the Nauvoo city council ordered the destruction of the newspaper as a nuisance."

As it stands, it sounds as if Smith acted independently and specifically outside of his duties to remove the Expositor because it said mean things about him, which we know is not true; Smith counseled with the city council in his capacity as mayor and participated in the negotiations based on that position, not as an influential but uninvolved angry man. It should also be noted in here somewhere that the council's decision was made with regard for current legal precedent and on the basis of "keeping the peace" after the publication generated an uproar in Nauvoo.

I suppose the specific mention of plural marriage is OK since that was one of the major criticisms by the Expositor.

I think it may also be prudent to avoid the implication that the Expositor was an established paper that existed for some reason *besides* criticizing Smith.

What do you all think of something like this? "That summer, a controversial publication highly negative of Smith was issued, criticizing his teachings, especially plural marriage. Fearing aggravated mob violence, the Nauvoo city council, with Smith as mayor, ruled the publication a public nuisance and ordered its destruction."

It probably needs some work, but just throwing that out there. Let me know what you think. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 13:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

We all know, despite what moderns would call "plausible deniability," that Smith called the shots here, and that without him, the city council would have done nothing. Smith was not "uninvolved." He was the one who made the argument that the newspaper was "a greater nuisance than a dead carcass" and should not be allowed to continue publication. Bushman is clear: "He [not 'they'] did not grasp the enormity of destroying a press, especially one that was attacking him." (541)

It's always tempting to expand the lead, but we're pushing it in length right now. If the reader wants to examine the situation in detail, let him scroll down.--John Foxe (talk) 18:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

If we're concerned about the size of the lead, then we should trim that down rather a lot. We don't want to leave readers with incorrect impressions, do we? I didn't say Smith was uninvolved, perhaps I worded it incorrectly; I meant that Smith was involved in the matter because of his mayorship, and not that he had no legitimate reason to be involved, see? The current blurb doesn't make this distinction.

If we don't want to expand too much, how about this? "A publication critical of Smith was disseminated and deemed a public nuisance by the Nauvoo city council, with Smith as mayor." That's all we need about it. I think that the current version renders the situation unfairly; we need to expand to explain more completely or contract to avoid details that are misleading without sufficient exposition. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 23:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I like the gist of saying "X was done by the Nauvoo city council, with Smith as mayor" better than our current wording, because the former does seem more clear and accurate, but the rest of the proposed wording just doesn't quite click yet. I'll give this one some thought and come back later. The very name of the Nauvoo Expositor makes clear what its purpose was, and (imho) for this reason it would be better to name it rather than simply link to it via the words "local publication". ...comments? ~BFizz 00:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Haven't given it too much thought, but to make it more readable I suggest changing,

"A publication critical of Smith was disseminated and deemed a public nuisance by the Nauvoo city council, with Smith as mayor"

To

"While Smith was mayor of Nauvoo, a publication critical of him was deemed a public nuisance by the city council and was disseminated"

Just a style proposal.

Bring on the mini-wheats.

I also like,

"That summer, a publication highly critical of Smith was circulated, criticizing his teachings, especially those on plural marriage. Fearing aggravated mob violence the Nauvoo city council, with Smith as mayor, ruled the publication a public nuisance and ordered its destruction."173.180.112.66 (talk) 01:11, 18 July 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

Basically, I think the only new change being suggested here is to re-include the idea of the paper being deemed a public nuisance. I think that's reasonable, but I don't think the lede should go detail about people's theories as to what was in Smith's mind when his counsel ordered the paper's destruction. I would suggest the following:

"That summer, the Nauvoo city government led by Smith ordered the destruction as a nuisance of a newspaper that criticized Smith's power and recent teachings."

COGDEN 06:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks good COgden but it reads oddly. Perhaps some commas. Like; "That summer, the Nauvoo city government led by Smith ordered the destruction, as a nuisance, of a newspaper that criticized Smith's power and recent teachings." Don't know how to fix it without making it longer but it seems awkward that way too. Perhaps, "That summer, the Nauvoo city government led by Smith ordered the destruction of a newspaper that criticized Smith's power and recent teachings, on the grounds of its being a nuisance."173.180.112.66 (talk) 17:25, 18 July 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

I've made a stab at a consensus by cutting words (and commas) rather than adding them. "Nuisance" has a legal definition that differs substantially from what most laymen reading the lede would intuit. To use the word without a definition makes Smith sound even more arbitrary than he was, i.e., that he had the paper destroyed just because he found it annoying.--John Foxe (talk) 20:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I've named the Nauvoo Expositor rather than simply saying "a newspaper"; I don't really see the need to generalize in this case. The intro seems incomplete without mentioning plural marriage somewhere, since it was such a controversial part of Smith's life and teachings. ...comments? ~BFizz 20:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I think it looks pretty good. I didn't realize that polygamy had been written out of the lede, and I agree it should be there somewhere. Maybe in the last paragraph, where it refers to "family structures". COGDEN 21:35, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I added ",with Smith as mayor" because it looked like Smith was leading the council from the pulpit and that's not truely the case. There was a valid reason for him to be leading of the city council. Padillah (talk) 16:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Either 'with Smith as mayor' or 'led by Smith' seem acceptable to me; the former is clearer but wordier and made awkward by necessary commas. ...comments? ~BFizz 21:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't oppose "with Smith as mayor", but I agree it is awkward. That's why I proposed "the Nauvoo city government led by Smith", which I don't think implies that he led merely from the pulpit. COGDEN 00:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

How about "headed by"? That comes closer to saying "he was the head, not just some outside influence". I'm trying to get away from the image of Smith, interfering of his own volition, leading a lynch-mob. The reason he "led" the council really should be presented (unless we have substantial evidence that Smith was using his position for personal influence). Padillah (talk) 12:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

"Headed by" is good. COGDEN 19:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Life in Ohio (Dead link for note 143)

The article reads,

"Since 1835, the church had publicly denied accusations that members were practicing polygamy,[143] but behind the scenes, a rift developed between Smith and Oliver Cowdery over the issue.[144]"

First, the scope of the sentence here seems to be on the rift between Smith and Cowdery so including the church's denial makes the sentence progression awkward. Is the rift over polygamy or the church's "denial" of it? Needs a clean up.

Second, the link to the church's denial is dead so it should be questioned, updated, or removed.

Third, based on the argument that plural marriage was possibly dynastic in nature at that time and that it was a dangerously hot topic, (no I'm not trying to rehash the issue) what evidence exists that the church was complicit in acting in bad faith in these denials. It kind of reads like that. So if the rift is linked to polygamy (and not the church's denial of it) could it not read better as;

"Since 1835, some church members had been secretly practicing polygamy [fix dead link], and behind the scenes, a rift developed between Smith and Oliver Cowdery over the issue.[144]"

or

"Since 1835, the church had secretly permitted the practice of polygamy [fix dead link], and behind the scenes, a rift developed between Smith and Oliver Cowdery over the issue.[144]"

or if the link can't be fixed,

"In 1835 a rift developed between Smith and Oliver Cowdery over the issue of polygamy.[144]"

173.180.112.66 (talk) 09:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

I'm fixed the citation. It is a citation to Hill (1977), which is a printed book and doesn't necessarily need to have a working link to an online excerpt. I think it's important to note that beginning in 1835, the church publicly denied the practice of polygamy. The nature of the rift between Smith and Cowdery is too complicated to really spell out in this article, but the essence of it was as follows: Smith began practicing plural relationships with at least Fanny Alger. Cowdery himself also probably dabbled in plural relationships, but for some reason thought that Smith's relationship with the adolescent Alger was no more than a filthy affair. A couple of other people may also have begun plural relationships, but by and large, very few people, even at high levels in the church, knew about it, and it was so on the down-low that when rumors surfaced in 1835, Smith did not disabuse the church of its denial of polygamy that was published as part of the 1835 edition of the D&C. So here's what I would propose:

"Though the church's public position was to repudiate polygamy,[143] behind the scenes there was a rift between Smith and Oliver Cowdery over the issue.[144]"

COGDEN 18:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Great COgden, as long as the link (143) is changed to the book and not the website.

173.180.123.27 (talk) 23:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

The citation was originally to the book, but the book cite was also linked to an online excerpt, which is apparently no longer available. I've removed the link to the online excerpt. COGDEN 00:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Travelling mummy show

Under "Life in Ohio" it reads:

"...Smith also "translated" a papyrus obtained from a traveling mummy show"

According to History of the Church (2:235) On the 3rd of July, Michael H. Chandler came to Kirtland to exhibit some Egyptian mummies. There were four human figures, together with some two or more rolls of papyrus covered with hieroglyphic figures and devices. As Mr. Chandler had been told I could translate them, he brought me some of the characters, and I gave him the interpretation."

Does Brodie have different evidence that Smith went to Chandler's show? I recommend this might read better as;

"Smith also "translated" a papyrus given him by Michael H. Chandler who traveled with an exhibition (show) of Egyptian mummies. It was later published as the Book of Abraham."

This adds a name to the exhibitor and a context given the debate over who approached whom. As it stands it reads that Joseph Smith went to some random sideshow, brought home a souvenir, and translated it as scripture. The HC reference seems to suggest something quite different.

Additionally, I can't see any reference to the Book of Moses and wonder if it should not be included. Not sure why one is there and not the other. If for brevity, perhaps drop the whole line, add links and this rewrite;

"Smith also recorded two additional books of scripture, the Book of Abraham and the Book of Moses. One a translation from possible ancient Egyptian papyrus, the other received as part of Smith's "translation" of the Bible."

173.180.112.66 (talk) 08:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

If there's no objection to using the HC as source, I've got no problem with the version you suggest above. I do agree that "mummy show" gives one the feeling that some snake-oil salesman was touring the countryside with a "gen-u-ine real-life mummy" (read: thing wrapped in rags) and duped Smith into thinking the thing was real. As opposed to the fact that it was real (as evidenced by more modern translations of the script) and Smith actually felt he was translating it. Padillah (talk) 16:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The change looks good to me. Unless other sources contradict the notion that Chandler approached Smith, then that is how we should say it. From what the HC quote says, it appears that Chandler owned or was in charge of the exhibition; we could say "managed" or something similar instead of simply "traveled with", which sounds slightly odd. ...comments? ~BFizz 21:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I think Chandler's name is irrelevant and too much detail for a summary article like this. But I see the point that the language needs to be changed. Chandler was running a traveling mummy show and charging admission, but I don't think it was quite like a circus side-show, and it's true that Chandler did approach Smith, thinking that because of Smith's known interest in the subject, he might be a potential buyer for the extremely expensive mummies. But all this is way too much detail for such a minor point in Smith's history. All we really need to say is something like this:

"Smith also purported to translate, from Egyptian papyri he had purchased from a traveling exhibitor, a text he later published as the Book of Abraham."

COGDEN 01:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks great COgden. The individual isn't critical here, but could the HC record be referenced so that the name of the exhibitor is available for those wanting to research further? Also, is there evidence the papyri were purchased, if not how about 'received' in place of 'purchased' unless there is evidence to the contrary. Good proposal, COgden.

173.180.112.66 (talk) 05:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

I mostly like COgden's suggestion, but "from a traveling exhibitor" is an unclear phrase that will probably leave readers scratching their heads. Doesn't hurt to give the man's name if it works in the prose, though it's not necessary.

Smith also purported to translate papyri he acquired from Michael H. Chandler, the manager of a traveling Egyptian artifact exhibition. Smith later published the text as the Book of Abraham....comments? ~BFizz 05:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a tad wordier, but I think it's clear and correct. ...comments? ~BFizz 05:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

BFizz,

Using 'acquired' is a stroke of genius. It stays neutral as to the speculation of whether the papyri were gifted, borrowed, or purchased.

173.180.112.66 (talk) 08:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

I like it, it looks real good BFizz. Padillah (talk) 12:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't strongly oppose "traveling Egyptian artifact exhibition", but I think it's wordy. As to citing Chandler's name, he is such an obscure figure that he does not even have his own Wikipedia page. Where space is so precious as it is in this article, spelling the name of some obscure and otherwise unknown figure is wasteful. The article does not, for example, mention the names of George Lane, Luman Walter, or even Joseph Knight, Sr.

Also, the historical record is clear that the mummies and papyri were purchased from Chandler for $2,400. The money was donated by church members, but Smith technically owned them until his death, but that's a very minor point. Really, the details of how he acquired the mummies and papyri are not that important here--the important point is that he purportedly translated them and later published them as the Book of Abraham. COGDEN 18:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps to cut down on wordiness we could remove "Michael H. Chandler, the manager of", and simply say "papyri he acquired from a traveling Egyptian artifact exhibition". This still accomplishes the task of making the "traveling mummy show" sound a little more legitimate, as it was. ...comments? ~BFizz 18:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I think the name of the person is only mentioned out of convention. It's just awkward to say "Smith acquired the papyri from somebody" also, we need to establish that these were real Egyptian artifacts, not some side-show snake-oil salesman. (I can't believe I'm doing this...) "Michael H. Chandler" is 19 characters long and "a traveling exhibitor" is 21 so, technically, if it's space you want to save mentioning the name is smaller but let's be real - are we truly talking about giving up content based on space? Padillah (talk) 19:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem is, we cannot simply drop the name Michael H. Chandler without explaining who he was. Otherwise he is simply some random guy that happened to have an Egyptian papyri. So it's not a choice of name or explanation, it's name+explanation, or just explanation. Include or exclude the name; it's not a big deal to me. But the explanation has to be solid either way. ...comments? ~BFizz 19:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

From what I am reading in "The Rise of Mormonism: 1816-1844" (H. Michael Marquardt), the confusion over the purchase or not of the papyri comes from the fact that the papyri accompanied the purchase of 4 mummies. So In essence Smith did not in fact purchase the papyri, he purchased the mummies and the papyri were thrown in. From this context, how about,

"Smith also purported to translate, from Egyptian papyri he acquired from Michael H. Chandler [notation 'X'], a text he later published as the Book of Abraham." [Notation 'X' to read] Chandler was the inheritor by will of 11 mummies and papyri from Antonio Lebolo. These items were on display in a traveling Egyptian exhibition. Smith was required to purchase 4 mummies in order to acquire the papyri and did so for the sum of $2400. (Marquardt, H. Michael, The Rise of Mormonism: 1816-1844)

As a side note, does anyone know what ever happened to the mummies Smith purchased? Last I read Emma had them.

173.180.123.27 (talk) 00:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

Some of the details are found at Book of Abraham#Loss and rediscovery of the papyrus. Using a footnote for extra information is a good idea, but a tiny bit of it should still be in the prose. ...comments? ~BFizz 01:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree, B Fizz. What I think I am hearing is that the "tiny bit" should be the name of the individual, not just somebody or the show. Anything more I think adds even more text to an article it seems we are trying to shorten.

How about adding the descriptor 'exhibitor' as in;

"Smith also purported to translate, from Egyptian papyri he acquired from exhibitor Michael H. Chandler [notation 'X'], a text he later published as the Book of Abraham." [Notation 'X' to read] Chandler was the inheritor by will of 11 mummies and papyri from Antonio Lebolo. These items were on display in his traveling Egyptian exhibition. Smith was required to purchase 4 mummies in order to acquire the papyri and did so for the sum of $2400. (Marquardt, H. Michael, The Rise of Mormonism: 1816-1844)

173.180.123.27 (talk) 16:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

I think this is too much information about such an obscure topic, even for a footnote. Think about it this way: this is about the same amount of information we provide, including footnotes, about the First Vision and the organization of the Church of Christ in 1830. If this information were necessary to provide context, that would be one thing, but I see this information as merely tangential trivia.

Also, it's correct to say that Smith purchased the papyri. The papyri and the mummies were a package deal, and he bought both of them. As to Chandler's name, I still say it's irrelevant. He is an obscure figure who is otherwise unknown to history other than because of this one transaction. Who cares what his name is? COGDEN 18:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Good points COgden. Looking it over I like your earlier recommendation;

"Smith also purported to translate, from Egyptian papyri he had purchased from a traveling exhibitor, a text he later published as the Book of Abraham."

173.180.123.27 (talk) 07:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

Purported is one of the words that should be avoided. It implies doubt or inaccuracy. The LDS movement teaches that Smith translated. Wikipedia should not be put in a position of defining doubt or inaccuracies; just report the facts.--^StormRider 08:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Then we should state plainly that Smith claimed he translated the papyri but modern scholars have proven that his translations were, at best, grossly inaccurate. Wikipedia is not "defining doubt" the doubt has existed since Theodule Deveria first set eyes on the translations. Wikipedia didn't create this doubt, Deveria did. With that in mind "purported" is really the kindest way to present this. Padillah (talk) 15:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm good with claimed. It seems to say the same thing and it's shorter. Alternatively it could be stated;

"Smith also made a translation, from Egyptian papyri he had purchased from a traveling exhibitor, of a text he later published as the Book of Abraham."

By stating "made a translation" as opposed to "translated" it seems to infer that the correctness of the translation remains open to discussion.

Still, I prefer,

"Smith also claimed to translate, from Egyptian papyri he had purchased from a traveling exhibitor, a text he later published as the Book of Abraham."

173.180.123.27 (talk) 15:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

I think your last suggestion looks best to me. Is there room to make mention that the claimed translation has been questioned by several academics? Just a quick link to the proper article, or is the link to the Book of Abraham enough? That article has links to the "Criticism of ..." article. Padillah (talk) 18:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I think "claimed to translate" is fine because it at least alerts the reader that there is a controversy, and the reader can follow the link to the Book of Abraham article to find out about the details of that controversy. I like either claimed or purported better than the original "translated" (in quotes).COGDEN 19:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies clearly state that we don't use "claimed"; we don't alert readers to a controversy. We report the controversy. For example, historian X has stated xyz about the process. COgden, you know very well that we report facts by experts. Wikipedia should never be put in the position of stating an opinion. If there is controversey, don't infer, provide the reader the actual controversy as stated by experts. I am against the term claimed because the policy is clear that it should not be used. This is not rocket science guys; just follow the policy.--^StormRider 21:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

But if we don't used claimed, and simply say that Smith translated it, then everyone will be screaming POV!!! There's really no way around it besides using 'claimed' or 'purported'. (Not all circumstances can avoid these words.) Scare quotes are on the same level as using these words. We could try simply using something like "Smith said he translated..." though for this case it would make for awkward prose. I personally tend to use words like "asserted" or "affirmed" for such circumstances. But I'm fine with the latest green-text suggestion. ...comments? ~BFizz 21:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

StormRider, I see where you are coming from. But I don't think this is a case of alerting readers to a controversy as much as it is referencing the important debate that exists. Though I do prefer the word 'asserted' it makes for awkward or wordy rephrasing. Any suggestions on how to get around it? 173.180.123.27 (talk) 22:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

The issue is what is more important, neutrality or awkward wording? I take neutrality every time, overwhelming so! I think several wordings have been proposed that did not violate any of the words to avoid policy. Just pick one of those and move on.

Please understand that all I am supporting is neutrality. I am not against any assertion of controversy, criticism, etc. When all else fails, let experts speak on the topic by summing their statements and using the reference.

Lastly, topics of faith do not need to have every sentence begin, "They believe", or "he said that he...". We make it clear to readers that we are reporting a history as reported by an expert(s) and then move on. If a position is contested by a reliable expert, then bring it up and reference the statement. What is absolutely clear is that we do not put Wikipedia taking a position or stating an opinion. Wikipedia does not think, does not opine, and has no opinion. Wikipedia gathers information from experts and reports on a given topic to readers. --^StormRider 02:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Then you are misunderstanding the phrase "Smith claims..." That is not something "We did to Wikipedia" it what the man actually claimed. I think I see what the issue is, we are not presenting the full claim. "Smith claimed to translate the papyri through the gift of God. But, upon examination by academics in the field of Egyptology, he turned out to be was wrong on all counts." Is a phrase such as this OK with you? If not please provide an actual statement you'd like to see. Don't just throw out vague referrals and ask us to guess, propose a phrasing that suits your objection. But understand, I will not support a phrase that states "Smith translated" the papyri unless it also mentions, unequivocally, that he got it wrong in every respect. You don't want Wikipedia to opine, well I don't want it to outright lie. Padillah (talk) 14:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to be bold here and add the variation (with claimed instead of purported) on COgden's

"Smith also purported to translate, from Egyptian papyri he had purchased from a traveling exhibitor, a text he later published as the Book of Abraham."

I know StormRider isn't happy with it, but then I don't think anything here will ever be 100% satisfied (this is an article of religious significance). If nothing else, I think we would all agree the change is an improvement to the original phrasing and maybe there will be time to rehash this one at a later date. I'm not sure about adding links so would you help me out COgden?

173.180.123.27 (talk) 18:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

Instructions on wikilinking can be found at Help:Wikilinks. Basically, just put two square brackets (next to the 'p' button on your keyboard, usually) around a phrase, like this: [[Book of Abraham]], and it produces the link: Book of Abraham. Read the help page for instructions on using the pipe (shift+the key above enter, usually). ...comments? ~BFizz 18:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

StormRider, Wikipedia policy does not say you can't use the word claimed. There are guidelines that say you need to be careful using such words, but it's indeed possible to use the word claimed in a neutral way. In this case, it turns out that the mainstream scholarly consensus about the Book of Abraham is that the Book is not a translation (in any traditional sense of that word) of the papyri bought by Smith. Indeed, there is even a growing Mormon apologetic view that agrees with this, arguing that the book was inspired from the papyri, yet was not actually a translation. But we don't need to recount the mainstream view here, simply because we don't need to go into that much detail. "Claimed to translate" is in fact quite generous in favor of the old Mormon apologetic view, compared to the way it could be presented. Lets face it: the old Mormon apologetic view is not mainstream Egyptology. On that basis, I don't see anything wrong with saying "claimed", which I think is quite neutral in this context. But I'm open to other phrasings. I thought about using "Smith said...", but it seems a little inapt here, given that there is more to the story than simply what Smith said. In this case, what Smith said is in principle independently verifiable by comparing the papyri with the translation. COGDEN 18:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually I think I did it right by just leaving the old link and editing around it.

Also, if anyone is interested, in "Life in Ohio" I moved a quotation mark from the phrase Smith's life descended into a tangle of intrigue and conflict"

"Smith's life "descended into a tangle of intrigue and conflict""

to

""Smith's life descended into a tangle of intrigue and conflict""

In looking at the original quote it begins at Smith (actually Joseph Smith's).

173.180.123.27 (talk) 18:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

Easter eggs and overlinking

On the Good Article nomination page, it has been argued that the article has several instances easter eggs and overlinking. I have therefore revised the introduction, which I agree had too many unnecessary links. There is a school of thought out there that introductions should have a lower link density than other parts of the article, and I'm sympathetic to that, because if a reader reads something in the intro and wants to find out more, she should skip down and read the rest of the article, rather than reading a linked article. Let me know if anyone has a problem with my proposed changes to linking in the introduction.

The rest of the article needs to be combed over. Nasty Housecat raised the following examples of overlinked terms: "Book of Mormon, golden plates, polygamy, Carthage, and many others." We need to decide how often we want to link certain terms like Book of Mormon. Once per section? (Only linking once in the whole article is probably not enough, because we don't want the reader to have to comb back through the article to find the link.) COGDEN 01:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

With my trusty CTRL+F skills, I've found and cut out two more links to Book of Mormon that appeared more than once per section. I think once per section is a reasonable guideline. My personal opinion is that captions don't count, and there should be at least one relevant link in each caption, though admittedly I tend to prefer more wikilinks than the average Wikipedian. ...comments? ~BFizz 00:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Joseph Smith dictating the Book of Mormon

Id like to suggest a change in pictures used under the heading 'Founding a church (1827–30)'. The current picture, en.wiki.x.io/wiki/File:JosephSmithTranslating.jpg isn't clear enough to reflect the picture note. I prefer this picture: http://www.imagesoftherestoration.org/blog/wp-content/nggallery/Mormon%20Art/jstranslatingbom.jpg which is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License, because of its clarity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canstusdis (talk • contribs) 18:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a clearer drawing—supposedly of Smith dictating to Martin Harris—but a serious problem is that the artist has arguably misinterpreted the primary evidence from Eber Howe, Mormonism Unvailed, which says that sometimes Harris and Smith worked with a sheet between them and "at other times the Prophet would sit in a different room or up stairs." (14) The artist has turned "up stairs" into "on the stairs." Also, Smith tended to use a top hat, and it's highly unlikely that the cabin where Harris and Smith worked would have had such an elaborate banister—or any banister at all for that matter.--John Foxe (talk) 20:13, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree. If Smith ever translated like he did in this illustration, it would have been rare. The best descriptions have him translating out in the open, with Smith sitting on a chair, resting his elbows on his knees while his face was buried in a white top hat. COGDEN 00:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Very good points, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canstusdis (talk • contribs) 14:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I do agree that it is much more clear and appealing, despite its historical inaccuracy. However, note that the "non-commercial" part of the license is ironically considered non-free content (commercial entities are not 'free' to use it), and thus cannot be used on Wikipedia anyways. ...comments? ~BFizz 23:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

What About Joseph's Prophecies Concerning the civil war?

One of Joseph's most famous prophecies is an accurate description of the civil war 33 years before it began. How come this isn't included? - Samuel Clayton —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuel Clayton (talk • contribs) 18:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Because this article isn't about his accuracy in prophecy - it's about his life in general. There's also quite a bit of subjective translation when talking about prophecies and the like. Unless he made a statement like "Ulysses S. Grant will pronounce General Order No. 11 on December 17, 1862" there's gonna be some subjective translation to whatever he said. And WP is not subjective, that's OR. Padillah (talk) 18:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

(Copy paste removed by User:B Fizz. See Doctrine and Covenants section 87 on lds.org.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuel Clayton (talk • contribs) 20:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Copy-pasting the whole section here is not appropriate. WP:NOTFORUM. If you have a suggestion for where and how to work this information into the article, then feel free to bring it up here. ...comments? ~BFizz 22:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Primary Sources

This article has tons more secondary sources than primary sources... Why? Seeing that we are supposed to simply display the facts and let the reader decide for himself, which is difficult to do when all which has been studied are books containing the opinions of other people--even if their account is considered reliable. Joseph Smith ordered the compilation of the History of the Church, six of these seven volumes describe his life alone. This is not even referenced once, which is pitiful. Bushman and Quinn are referenced at least 50 times, but what makes these other accounts any less applicable to not even be included? Using so many secondary sources is evidence alone how the article has been slightly biased--simply by placing emphasis on certain subjects such as polygamy.

It also does not make any differentiation between civil marriages and sealings and references to the rules prescribed to those involved in plural marriage. Men were required to get their wife's permission before taking on a second marriage. Joseph's story of him being a money-digger is a little different: " In the month of October, 1825, I hired with an old gentleman by the name of Josiah Stoal, who lived in Chenango county, State of New York. He had heard something of a silver mine having been opened by the Spaniards in Harmony, Susquehanna County, State of Pennsylvania; and previous to my hiring of him had bee digging in order if possible, to discover the mine. After I went to live with him, he took me and the rest of his hands, to dig for the silver mine, at which I continued to wok for nearly a month, without success in our undertaking, and finally I prevailed with the old gentleman to cease digging after it. Hence arouse the very prevalent story of my having been a money-digger." - Joseph Smith-History 1:55 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuel Clayton (talk • contribs) 18:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I notice you are a new Wikipedia editor, and I welcome you. On the issue of primary sources, you might be interested in reading this reliable sources guideline and neutrality policy, which do not directly answer your question, but deal with source-related issues. This is a broad overview article about Joseph Smith, and doesn't really get into the fine detail for which extensive citation of primary sources would be appropriate. This article does not have a lot of room to cite primary sources, which typically have to be supplemented with secondary sources that interpret them or place them in context. Plus, for this particular article, we are lucky enough to have two very good, well respected Smith biographies that we can draw from (Bushman and Brodie), as well as many other broadly-respected secondary sources.

Contrary to Mormon mythology, it was not the case that men were always required to obtain their first wife's permission before entering a second marriage. Most of Smith's marriages were done without even the knowledge of Emma, much less her permission. Also, Smith's description of his career as a money digger is not inconsistent with the historical record, but Smith was in this case minimizing his involvement in money digging. His work with Stowell was not his only treasure quest, which have been established beyond doubt by both Mormon and non-Mormon historians. COGDEN 19:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The specific part of the policy you may want to read is WP:PRIMARY. The first sentence of that section states, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources"; another sentence nicely summarizes the idea, "Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." ...comments? ~BFizz 23:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Joseph's view of the Godhead

This article includes Bushman's and Vogel's "arguing" how Joseph originally viewed God. But this conflicts with Joseph's supposed first vision: "It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other--This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!" - Joseph Smith, History 1832 this is before1835

"I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father..."- June 16, 1844

This is how I would explain the concept which so often confuses people outside of the church including myself. Joseph Smith equated Jehovah with Jesus Christ God of the Old Testament. Several prophets viewed Jehovah in the Book of Mormon: Mohonri, Jacob, and Nephi all spoke with Christ prior to his birth, when he was a spirit. Joseph Smith taught that Jehovah was our spirit brother which was chosen as Elohim's (Heavenly Father's) only begotten son. Joseph Smith taught that God created the earth through Jehovah(Jesus) by the power of the Holy Spirit, and likewise this is how Mormons worship God the Father through Jesus Christ. They are not of one Body but of one Glory. "Let us make man in our image"- Genesis 1:26 Jehovah the God of the Old Testament and Jesus are the same person in the Mormon religion so Bushman and Vogel are both right in technicality, but not when it comes to clarification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuel Clayton (talk • contribs) 20:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Would you please identify which sentences of the article you find problematic, and propose how to fix them? ...comments? ~BFizz 23:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Samuel Clayton, our job is not to decide whether Bushman or Vogel are "right". Our job is just to present their conclusions, and any other prominent, mainstream academic conclusions. We also must focus on what Smith actually taught and believed--even if his teachings and beliefs evolved over the years--rather than how modern Mormons have come to reconcile Smith's evolving or inconsistent teachings. It turns out the First Vision quote you provide here is from 1838, not 1832. In Smith's 1832 account, he simply said he saw "the Lord". The secular academic consensus is that Smith's view of the Godhead changed over the years, as he had time to reflect and develop his theology. I think most Mormon apologists will also concede that. COGDEN 02:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

COgden speaks accurately on how articles are written on Wikipedia. The one thing that always puzzles me is that using the Book of Mormon as the text for doctrine, I see one one doctrine that is teachable and that is the same doctrine as taught today. There are specific versus that if taken in isolation could lead one to support the doctrine of the Trinity, but when taken as a whole, the doctrine of the Trinity fails. This is why I personally find fault with all comments on a changing doctrine of Joseph. --^StormRider 03:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Bibliography

It has been suggested on the good article review page that we include a bibliography of Joseph Smith's writings in this article. There are, of course, issues with listing works such as the Book of Mormon, which followers believe was in fact not written by Smith, or the Doctrine and Covenants, which followers believe were revealed to him by God. Issues aside, I think it's a good idea. Discuss. ...comments? ~BFizz 21:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a fine idea. I also think we can overlook who "wrote" the various works of faith. They are mentioned in the article and I see no need to recap them here if that's going to cause a controversy. If that is unacceptable then we can formulate a heading that will encompass his written work as well as his "inspired" works. Padillah (talk) 12:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it could be easily done using phrases such as "published" or "translated what he claimed to be" ... .

96.51.55.125 (talk) 03:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

Do we really need a whole section to say that he has three published works to his name plus partial credit in a church history? I think his works are mentioned in the body of the article. I don't think such a short list adds anything. COGDEN 04:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Polygamy and criticism of Smith

User:Weaponbb7 has written the following in his review of the article:

“ l would consider incorporating more of the Origin of Latter Day Saint polygamy as this seems to be minimized. Incorporate Criticism of Joseph Smith, Jr. into the prose. As these seem to have been minimized or left out entirely. ”

Should we consider introducing a "criticism" or "controversy" section into the article so that these key topics are not "minimized"? I personally do not see any main topics in the two articles mentioned that are not also duly treated in this article. Discuss ...comments? ~BFizz 21:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I think this could be a good idea so long as it doesn't overwhelm the rest of the article. This isn't an excuse to bash the guy - it's a place where we can deposit the criticisms and label them accordingly. This would force us to ease up on the rest of the article (which critics might not like) but would provide a specific section open to criticisms (which proponents might not like). It would make presenting a balanced article much easier. Padillah (talk) 12:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I oppose a section devoted to "criticism" or "controversy," which has the potential to be both judgmental and spark indefinite edit wars. Let the reader make his own decision as to what about Smith's life is "controversial."--John Foxe (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Ideally, critical commentary should appear in the text in the appropriate sections, and not be bundled together in a separate criticism section. Among other things, that ensures that criticism is seen in context rather than as some isolated "rant section" (cf. John Foxe's concerns about edit wars). WP:BLP doesn't make any specific suggestions along this line, but it does state "Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral". --PLUMBAGO 15:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we are talking about two different things. First, "criticisms" should appear where they are relevant throughout the article. There should not be a section which is a "repository" for facts that some people think are embarrassing about Smith. These supposedly embarrassing facts are no different than any other facts, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, and to make any distinction between the two types of facts is, IMHO, a violation of WP:NPOV

Second, the subject of "criticism" is an entirely different animal than "criticisms". While "criticisms" are just facts or alleged facts, "criticism" is a style of writing, whose counterpart is apologetics. I'm undecided as to whether we need a separate section outlining the history of Smith-related criticism and apologetics through the years. Such a section might address the concerns of editors who want to see such a section and might insist on one before the article achieves featured status, but it will be a challenge to make compact and yet meaningful, and I'm not totally convinced yet that it is necessary. In the main text, we already mention Thomas Sharp and the Expositor, which were contemporary with Smith, but we could consider briefly mentioning Eber Dudley Howe and the Spaulding theory, early apologists Orson Pratt and B.H. Roberts, modern evangelicals like the Tanners and Ed Decker, and modern apologists like FARMS. Whether or not this is a good idea, I think, will depend on the implementation. So we might want to start an experimental section and see how it looks. If it seems really out of place, or damages the quality of the article as a whole, we can remove it. COGDEN 18:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this distinction. I was under the impression we would have a summary of the Criticism of Joseph Smith Jr. article. Not just a dumping ground for anybody that wants to attack Smith. Having this summary will help the article by providing a logical place for mentioning apologetic arguments rather than try to shoehorn them into the article body. But it must be restricted to actual apologetic arguments. This will also allow the body of the article to be a little more positive owing to the fact that we can move the apologetic points to a section all of their own without sacrificing the article to do it. Padillah (talk) 19:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm opposed to summarizing the miserable Criticism of Joseph Smith Jr. article in this biography. As COGDEN has correctly said, There's no reason to have a section of "facts that some people think are embarrassing about Smith. These supposedly embarrassing facts are no different than any other facts, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, and to make any distinction between the two types of facts is, IMHO, a violation of WP:NPOV." Besides, the last thing we need to do at this article—which has just been criticized for being too pro-Mormon—is to make the body of the article "a little more positive."--John Foxe (talk) 19:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Then what do you propose we do with apologetics like the Tanners? Do we just try and find a place to mention them in the article? Do we ignore them in favor of the "Criticism..." article? And what becomes of the miserable "Criticism..." article? Will we ever get around to fixing it? Although, I understand not wanting to create a problem where none exists. Padillah (talk) 20:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Ignore the Tanners. Fix the "Criticism" article independently. This is a biography of Joseph Smith, and no section treating critics or apologists is necessary. Let Joseph Smith be simply who he was without anachronistically dragging promoters and detractors into his career. Start down road of trying to decide exactly who is what (Is Bushman an apologist or a detractor?), and the result will be nothing but trouble.--John Foxe (talk) 20:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to dismiss Weaponbb7's comments though, because for all we know those comments might reflect the first impression of a constituency of other editors. Other than a few superficial matters that have been at least partially remedied already, Weaponbb7's comments seem to be limited to the non-biographical sections, mainly the "Legacy" section, for which we haven't devoted as much attention here on the talk page. For the "life" section, and maybe the "distinctive views and teachings" section, it's hard to argue there is much, if any, bias there. But the "legacy" section was only recently added, and maybe it needs another look. Adding a "criticism and apologetics" section could very well be a bad and unworkable idea, but here's another brainstorm: maybe we could add some material about how non-Mormons demonized Smith, as a counterpoint to the material about how Mormons deified him. Also, if you aren't paying attention when you read the "legacy" section, you might mistakenly think the article is praising Smith. Maybe there are superficial changes in the style that we can make. COGDEN 00:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Revised "Impact" section

I went ahead and revised the "Impact" section a bit to include not just the Mormon view deifying Smith, but also a brief discussion of the controversies he stirred in New York/Pennsylvania, Ohio, Missouri, and Illinois. I think that is also part of his "impact". I know this is covered in detail elsewhere in the article, but maybe this would help silence the criticism that the "Impact" section is unbalanced. Comments or suggestions are welcome. COGDEN 00:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I've just took it upon myself to revert all of John Foxe and COGDens "revising" edits to this section, the reason being, the way they were shaping the section was completely out of order. It was full of a highly visible, blatantly obvious negative prose full of emotionally charged attacks such as "liar" and such. It was making Joseph smith out to be some kind of criminal and tyrant, massively overlooking every single positive aspect in his life and maximising anything which made him look bad. There is no way on this entire planet I'd ever accept that as being "NPOV". It was incredibly offensive. Routerone (talk) 08:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

•" It was making Joseph smith out to be some kind of criminal and tyrant..." You may be overlooking the fact that many (most?) people believe that Joseph Smith was 'some kind of criminal and a tyrant'. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 12:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Depending on the reader's preconceptions, I think the section you deleted could just as easily be interpreted as showing how unfairly Smith was treated by the people in his world. Smith himself said that the angel Moroni told him that his name would be had for "good and evil" throughout the world. Right now, the "impact" section only shows how his name was for "good" among Mormons. What's wrong with showing the other half of Moroni's prophecy? Isn't the controversy and intense hostility toward him at least half of his "impact"? COGDEN 09:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Expert reviewer needed

I absolutely agree with the Wikipedia editor who requests a review by "someone with more expertise on this subject" before this article gets a good article rating.

I don't know anything about Mormonism, but this article clearly contains material that hss been added by vandals in an attempt to make Mormons look like superstitious idiots. Huge parts of it are taken from a "South Park" episode specifically designed to mock Mormon beliefs.

I would ask knowledgable Mormons to edit this article, removing this insulting nonsense and presenting the actual beliefs of their faith. Mardiste (talk) 21:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

This article has been edited for several years by Wikipedians who run the gamut of Mormon and non-Mormon views. The article is also well sourced to the best scholarship. (If you're ignorant of Mormonism, how can you be certain that the article contains "insulting nonsense.")--John Foxe (talk) 22:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Smith's story does probably strike most modern readers as unbelievable. But it was not nearly so unbelievable to the less cynical and less naturalistic people of his day who were open to mystical and magical religious experience. In much the same way, if Jesus or Muhammad lived today, they'd probably be dismissed as kooks, and their followers, superstitious idiots. COGDEN 22:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Mardiste for your comments. They are fair and accurate in a sense. There are two sides to every coin and for religious topics, perspectives become many sided. It could be said by LDS that many would not recognize the story of Joseph Smith by reading this article. This article takes a particularly areligious approach to Joseph Smith and as such, misses a significant, if not the sole reason, for his place in history. It is excludes in its entirety the perspective of Joseph Smith himself and the LDS Church. If this same approach was taken on Luther, Calvin, Muhammad, or Jesus Christ....well it would never been written in the first place in such a way. You will not find this tone used in each of their articles. One does not get the impression of crazed, superstitious, mindless lemmings following an even more depraved idiot. One generally finds some allowance for telling the story of a religious person in a simple, factual approach. This is an example where that perspective has been omitted.

On the other hand, Wikipedia is areligious. Wikipedia is not interested in what advocates think or write. In pursuit of third party, "expert" opinion, editors attempt to portray a historical picture of the individual. Where advocates of the person have been drowned out, the tone of the article takes a decidedly negative pitch highlighting things or events that have no weight; balance is lost. When advocates, in number, have the upper hand, then consensus allows for a more positive tone or at least giving balance to those historical facts and events that have the most meaning. Most advocates/members to do not actively participate on this article; I seldom if ever edit it anymore and I know a great number of LDS who have chosen the same path I have. I have more success editing other articles.

This article is more of a shrill shadow portrayed of the man Joseph Smith. It is one out of many perspectives that can be drawn. It is accurate in a sense, but a reader would never gain a clear understanding of Joseph Smith or the religion he started by reading this article alone. --^StormRider 00:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

This article is a model of scholarly consensus and was recently (and IMHO, unfairly) criticized as too pro-Mormon. (Can shadows be shrill?)--John Foxe (talk) 09:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Good luck finding an expert reviewer. If you pick a follower of Smith as your "expert", then critics will be displeased; if a critic, then followers will be displeased. It's hard to find middle ground with someone who made such extraordinary claims as did Joseph Smith, Jr. But from the basis of good aritcle criteria I feel this article, while far from perfect, has come a long way in the years it has been edited. I didn't expect it to be easily or automatically granted GA status, but rather, to be reviewed and receive extra outside attention to help its slow but steady progress towards FA status. The accusation that "huge parts" of this article are taken from a South Park episode is baseless. Please point me to a specific paragraph that you consider to be "insulting nonsense". ...comments? ~BFizz 16:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Mardiste for speaking up. Some of us LDS have expressed the same concern, and it's nice to have it validated that it isn't merely a bias of ours since an outside voice sees it too.173.180.116.53 (talk) 16:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

Mardiste said he didn't "know anything about Mormonism," so I'm gratified he agrees with you rather than me.--John Foxe (talk) 16:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Alas, friend John, the shrillness of a shade depends upon the tone of its cry. The shadow is but a faint representation of the man. My objective was not made to offend or to be taken personally, but to share my opinion. The vast majority of LDS would not recognize this article as representative of Joseph Smith or his life. It does not surprise me that critics will continue to find problems with the article; for them the article should be limited to a few words: Joseph Smith was a fraud. Anything more than that is an affront to their sensibilities. --^StormRider 17:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't offended in the least, Storm. I just thought I'd note some prose headed towards a deeper "shade" of purple than usual.--John Foxe (talk) 17:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Though I honestly do enjoy your word play as you respond to each other, this conversation accomplishes virtually nothing until we get some concrete examples of what exactly we should be fixing to make this article fulfill the good article criteria. A few reviewers were bold enough to suggest specific areas for improvement, and they were improved. What else is lacking? ...comments? ~BFizz 19:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, B Fizz. As to some of the prior discussion, I disagree with the implied assumption that this article needs to somehow find a "middle ground" between hagiography and anti-Mormonism. Middle ground does exist (see Neilson & Givens, 2008, Joseph Smith Jr.: reappraisals after two centuries). However, NPOV is not about "middle ground"—it is about neutral ground. The issue of whether or not Joseph Smith was really and truly a prophet of God is irrelevant to Wikipedia. We'll leave that question to Sunday School. What we answer in this article is, what do the most respected and cited sources write about Joseph Smith, and what does a general audience most want to know about him? I think this article answers that question very well, and includes a very broad range of information about Smith, most of which is backed by the consensus of the academic community. The article also includes citations to authors with a broad range of perspectives including Mormon and non-Mormon perspectives.

But we don't include fringe views here, including some of Smith's descriptions of his own history and some of what is taught over the Mormon pulpit, except to the extent that they have historical or cultural significance. For example, we don't cite Smith's story of finding the golden plates because of some judgment that the story might be true (which is irrelevant). We cite the story because it is what initially made him regionally famous. We don't cite Smith's stories about the First Vision because we think that God and Jesus might have actually visited Joseph in the grove in 1820—we cite them in the "impact" section because long after his death, the vision became the most important element of Smith mythology (using that term in its purely academic sense). Many Mormon views about Smith, like it or not, are classed as "fringe" under Wikipedia policy. We can include some of them to the extent they are notable, to show Smith's significance to Mormonism. But because Wikipedia seeks to maintain a neutral and mainstream perspective, these views cannot have equal footing with consensus historical information about Smith. COGDEN 20:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm quite disappointed in the discourtesy shown Mardiste. It is clear that his statement, "I don't know anything about Mormonism" was simply meant as an open courtesy to help identify his POV. But some who did not agree with his POV, instead of listening and respecting his opinion have jumped to merely discredit him. Very poor form.173.180.116.53 (talk) 03:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

Mardiste claimed ignorance and then clearly demonstrated that ignorance by claiming this article had been based on a cartoon parody.--John Foxe (talk) 13:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm writing to extend a sincere apology to Mormons who were offended by my post. I swear to you on my honour that I did not know that the contents of this article accurately reflected the beliefs of the Church of Latter Day Saints and I am sincerely asking for your forgiveness. My previous knowledge of Mormonism was based solely on the South Park episode, and I thought the article was defamatory. It is not. I'm honestly sorry. Mardiste (talk) 23:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

And I am withdrawing my request for an external reviewer. Mardiste (talk) 23:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I swear, when I first read the article, the only thing I was absolutely poositive was made up was the thing about the "seeing stones". I'm honestly sorry for any offence. Mardiste (talk) 23:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Requested review from BYU religion professors

I've emailed some BYU professors and asked them to review the article according to Wikipedia policies and good article criteria. Part of the email was as follows:

“ The Joseph Smith, Jr. article at Wikipedia is undergoing review for "Good Article" status. Wikipedians (volunteer editors at Wikipedia) disagree about the neutrality of the article, some saying it is too pro-mormon, and some saying it is too anti-mormon.

Given your expertise on the subject, would you kindly consider reviewing the article and giving your input, anonymously or otherwise?

”

I also provided them with links and promised that if they choose to provide feedback through me that I will keep it anonymous unless they indicate otherwise. Perhaps one or more of them will be able to help us to improve the quality of the article and provide the "knowledgeable Mormon" viewpoint that has been requested. ...comments? ~BFizz 20:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

That was a good move. Thank you for taking the time to go the extra mile. --^StormRider 20:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

"That was a good move." Maybe, but it sure should be interesting. Even "knowledgeable Mormon(s)" will have to utilize reputable sources to back up their viewpoint. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 21:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

p.s., I also contacted a few theology experts of my acquaintance; the notion that they may give their opinion here anonymously may appeal to them. Cheers Duke53 | ^Talk 00:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd welcome the comments of anyone, especially those writing in the field. However, unless they are willing to come forward to identify themselves, their views have only the weight of their ability to persuade us, and they will not have the benefit of their credentials to back them. The most persuasive perspective would be from a professor who has a non-BYU PhD in some field of history, and who has published articles on Mormon history in peer reviewed fora. If it's just some guy with a physics degree who dabbles in Egyptology, then I'd take their opinion with a grain of salt. Another issue is that they may be an expert in their field, but they may not be an expert in Wikipedia neutrality policy. COGDEN 00:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

More eyeballs is rarely a bad thing. Thanks for contacting your theologian acquaintances, Duke. Interesting it will be, if anyone responds, that is. ...comments? ~BFizz 02:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I think I owe everyone a big apology for starting this thread. I swear to God, this is actually worse than the time I invited the two terrified subliterate 18-year-old Utah farmboy virgins (oops, I mean "Church Elders") into my house to discuss theology. I thought they would have at least had a basic knowledge of the books of the Old Testament. This is just really sad. Mardiste (talk) 22:32, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Mardiste, I'm quite disappointed by this post. Referring to a companionship of LDS Missionaries as you do above is uncalled for. I took your initial post on good will, but I am now confused by whatever point you are trying to make. Your attempts at suggesting you are a better individual because you knew the books of the Old Testament remind me of when Mark Twain was told by a friend “Before I die, I plan to make a pilgrimage to the Holy Land. I will climb to the top of Mount Sinai and read the Ten Commandments aloud.” Replied Twain, “Why don’t you stay home and keep them?” I'd rather side with those two Elders who were likely trying to live what is taught in the Bible to the best of their knowledge than with someone who knows it inside and out but still acts with rudeness and contempt for his neighbors.

173.180.116.53 (talk) 07:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

Religious Authority and Ritual

I have some concerns with the wording,

"He saw his teachings and the Church of Christ as a restoration of early Christian ideals that had been lost in a great apostasy. At first, the power of Smith's church rested mainly on religious experience and charismatic authority, with little sense of hierarchy."

Regardless of the sources these statements are highly debatable.

First, Smith did not see the Church of Christ as merely "a restoration of early Christian ideals" he saw it as a restoration of the actual early Church (thus the return of Peter, James and John, the senior apostles following Christ's death and resurrection, before the organization of the Church to restore Priesthood and presiding authority).

Second, the power of the Church did not rest on "charismatic authority" it rested on restored authority.

Yes, I know most don't believe that, but it would more accurately (and fairly) read;

"He saw his teachings and the Church of Christ as a restoration of the early Christian church that had been lost in a great apostasy. At first, the power of Smith's church rested mainly on religious experience and Smith's declared authority, with little sense of hierarchy."173.180.116.53 (talk) 16:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

I think your first point is well taken because it concerns a description of what Smith believed. Your second point concerns actual practice rather than belief, and there the current wording is adequately grounded in Quinn.--John Foxe (talk) 17:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your input John. As to the second point I'm confused. The way it reads to me is that in the early days (after the Church was organized) Joseph presided by appealing to his own charisma and not to the authority he stated he received from God. I don't deny many were drawn to his character (charisma) but I'm not sure it can be said absolutely that that is where the "power of the Church [rested]."

Perhaps the problem is with the term "Charismatic Authority" which is a confusing term (there is even confusion on the WP page discussing the term). Is there a better way this could be phrased so as not to confuse?

173.180.116.53 (talk) 22:49, 21 August 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

I tried to follow the Quinn reference and can't find an active link to his 1994 book on early Mormon heirarchy. Do you have a link? If not, how does he evidence the claim about a merely charismatic authority? 173.180.116.53 (talk) 23:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

Quinn's 1994 book is not online. But he basically writes that Joseph Smith did not begin to appeal to restored authority until 1835. Initially, it was all charismatic authority, which simply means that everybody believed there was something special about Smith that allowed him to have unique access to God. Before 1835, no Mormon ever heard of visits by angels to restore priesthood authority. They believed that Smith had authority because he was a prophet and a "choice seer", not because angels ordained him. COGDEN 05:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks COgden. Looking deeper though, it seems to me that Quinn's position is speculative at best. There is as much, if not more, evidence suggesting Smith acknowledged, and did appeal to, restored authority even before the organization of the Church. In June 1829 at Fayette, New York, Joseph Smith received (stated) as D&C 18:9,

"And now, Oliver Cowdery, I speak unto you, and also unto David Whitmer, by the way of commandment; for, behold, I command all men everywhere to repent, and I speak unto you, even as unto Paul mine apostle, for you are called even with that same calling with which he was called."

Further in April 1830 Joseph revealed (stated) as D&C 20:2-3;

"Which commandments were given to Joseph Smith, Jun., who was called of God, and ordained an apostle of Jesus Christ, to be the first elder of this church; And to Oliver Cowdery, who was also called of God, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to be the second elder of this church, and ordained under his hand;"

I don't expect anyone to take my side on this one, but it is only fair to remove the "Charismatic Authority" statement until we have better agreement. As I said, at best this one is debatable, and so it should be removed until the evidence is more reliable.

Respectfully,173.180.116.53 (talk) 00:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

This is a difference of opinion resolved by Wikipedia standards about Verifiability. According to the latter, "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" rather than self-published sources that are "promotional." Following that guideline, Quinn will always trump Joseph Smith. To argue that Quinn is incorrect, you need to cite a reliable, peer-reviewed secondary source that disputes Quinn's view.--John Foxe (talk) 09:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Another problem I see is that while John sees the article to be referring to the "power", or ability to draw people, of the church Anon116.53 sees the "power", or celestial and divine strength, of the church. The statement needs to be rephrased to eliminate that type of misreading. If one person can misread it that way others can too. Padillah (talk) 14:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Hope my edit eliminated that problem without creating others.--John Foxe (talk) 17:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi John,

Thanks for the change. I respect your point on relying solely on Joseph's words. My point in the Doctrine and Covenants reference wasn't based as evidence such that because he said it it is true. I was merely using them as evidence based on timing. The fact that such was taught by Smith as early as 1829 and again in 1830 (I doubt there is much dispute as to the timing of these teachings) conflict with the position that Smith relied solely on his charisma for authority.

Your improvement now reads;

"At first, authority within Smith's church rested largely on his own charismatic personality and religious experiences."

Would anyone have problems with it reading;

"At first, authority within Smith's church rested largely on his charismatic personality and his own stated claim to apostolic succession (D&C 20:2-3)."

All this seems to do is identify what is meant by the term "religious experiences." I think this accepts the fact that, whether or not one accepts Smith's claim to apostolic succession, he himself justified his role as presiding elder based on his claim to divine authority.

173.180.116.53 (talk) 06:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

I think that is much more lucid. He wasn't just a smiling happy person, he actually thought he was supposed to head the church. I don't think there's much argument to be had that Smith didn't position himself as head of the church, through prophetic visions, almost immediately. Padillah (talk) 12:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I think Canadiandy's wording is an improvement, and I've made the change in the article.--John Foxe (talk) 13:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Canadiandy, it's good to see you pointing out specific areas for improvement and proposing specific suggestions. I think you're getting the idea of how to get things done here at Wikipedia. With time, I think the article will become very accurate at satisfying all relevant viewpoints of Smith, critical and apologetic alike. ...comments? ~BFizz 16:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Smith did not make a claim to apostolic succession until about 1835, when the Doctrine and Covenants was revised. Thus, it is anachronistic to say that his authority was based on any claim to such succession in the earliest years. So John, I disagree with your change and I've changed it back.

Canadiandy, your reference to D&C 18:19 ("I speak unto you, even as unto Paul mine apostle, for you are called even with that same calling with which he was called.") actually supports the idea that in the early years, authority was charismatic. Paul was called as an disciple and apostle because he saw Jesus in a vision, which is a very charismatic type of calling. Moreover, this revelation was directed in part to David Whitmer. Whitmer never claimed to have been part of the May 1829 visit by John the Baptist, or the later (1831?) visit by Peter, James, and John. In June 1829 when the revelation was given, the church had not yet even been organized. Thus, David Whitmer's 1829 call as a disciple/apostle of Jesus was purely charismatic at that time. Regardless, Whitmer's authority could conceivably be far different from the nature of Smith's own calling as perceived by early Mormons, which is what the article text discusses.

As to D&C 20:2-3 (BOC version: "Which commandments were given to Joseph, who was called of God and ordained an apostle of Jesus Christ, an elder of this church...[Oliver] ordained under his hand), this ordination is referring to the ordination of Joseph and Oliver as church elders on April 6, 1830. This does not refer to any earlier ordination by John the Baptist, or obviously any later ordination by Peter, James, and John. Smith's authority did not originate from this ordination in 1830--Mormons believed he had priesthood authority well before that, as a result of his charismatic calling, independent of any apostolic succession which nobody knew about in 1830. Indeed, Smith's and Cowdery's ordination as elders would have little meaning to early Mormons if they didn't already have some pre-existing authority to legitimize this ordination and the formation of the church. This pre-existing authority was perceived as charismatic authority. Early Mormons believed that Smith had authority because he was called as a prophet through visions. Only years later did they hear the stories that established a form of apostolic succession. COGDEN 23:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I stand corrected.--John Foxe (talk) 10:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Wait, what?

"At first, authority within Smith's church rested largely on his own charismatic personality and religious experiences."

From our edits, the meaning of this sentence has evolved from talking about the authority of other people within the church to solely Smith's authority within it. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe Foxe (or COgden) sourced Quinn there talking about the former, not the latter.

The sentence should read "At first, Smith's authority within his church...". Or, if we're talking about other people's authority within his church, then how can their authority "rest on [Smith's] charismatic personality and religious experiences"? I'm running into either a superfluous sentence (wouldn't his authority come from the fact that it's "his" church?) or a non sequitur. ...comments? ~BFizz 14:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like a while ago there was an edit that introduced an inaccuracy, and I didn't notice it before. First, we're not talking about Smith's "charismatic personality." Rather, we are talking about his charismatic authority, which is something quite different. Religious charismatic authority is not really a "personality trait". In the Christian context, it usually relates to Christian charisma (gifts of the Spirit). In other words, as described in the Quinn reference, Smith claimed to have special visions and revelations through the spirit that set him apart as a "choice seer". In the earliest years, this was the basis of his perceived religious authority. Later, he elaborated additional authority mechanisms, including a form of apostolic succession. So I have changed the wording to read "At first, Smith's religious stature among Mormons was based on his charismatic authority derived from visions and revelations." COGDEN 19:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

COgden. I commend you for your knowledge on this stuff. I think the problem I am having is that the great majority of people reading the article will be confused by the term "Charismatic Authority (CA)" If by it you mean Joseph claimed authority based on visions or revelations and not physical succession (i.e. laying on of hands), that is debatable but I'll grant it may be the case. But if so that needs to be made plain for the Wikipedia readership. I still contend that leaving a confusing phrase like "Charismatic Authority" in there is not helpful towards a fair understanding of most Wikipedia readers.

Wikipedia describes "CA" as "resting on devotion to the exceptional sanctity, heroism or exemplary character of an individual person, and of the normative patterns or order revealed or ordained by him."

I don't think Smith taught that it was he revealing 'X' to the Saints, as much as it was what God revealed to him. Thus, God (Jesus Christ) is the source of the Charismatic Authority (or so Joseph appears to have recorded).

Wikipedia then goes on to say, "Charismatic authority is one of three forms of authority laid out in Weber's tripartite classification of authority, the other two being traditional authority and rational-legal authority."

Translation here seems to be that the term itself is confusing even among the experts and even if used would need to be broken out according to its context. COgden, you seem to know what the intricacies of how the early authority unfolded, I wonder if you could come up with a better phrasing that is more clear (and hopefully shorter).

Sincere thanks, 173.180.106.108 (talk) 20:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

I don't think the idea of "charismatic authority" makes any particular judgment as to whether the revelations or orders come from the man himself, of from God. Some of the most archetypal examples of charismatic authority were Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad, and of these three, only Jesus (sort of) claimed to be the author of what he revealed. Plus, the word "charismatic" is well known by most(?) traditional Christians, and implies some sort of authority based on gifts of the Spirit, which Christians believe are sent by God. But from a secular perspective (like that of Max Weber), it doesn't matter whether the "charisma" came from God or from the prophet himself.

I don't object to using less technical language as long we can make the point succinctly, although the proposed addition of "authority derived from visions and revelations" might help in that regard. I thought about just deleting the word "charismatic", but I think the text would lose some valuable information. Does keeping the wikilinked term "charismatic authority", but adding the phrase "derived from visions and revelations" provide the average reader with enough information to roughly understand what the text, and a tool to find out more by clicking on the "charismatic authority" link? Or would it be better to delete the word "authority" and then cite Quinn and Max Weber and refer to charismatic authority in the footnote? COGDEN 20:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

COgden,

I know that throughout Christianity the term 'charismatic' might have unique meaning, but this article is not for religious readers only. I would prefer your proposal of "authority derived from visions and revelations" as it avoids jargon.

173.180.106.108 (talk) 00:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

Being an encyclopedia I'd be inclined to use the full term with an in-place explanation ("charismatic authority derived from visions and revelations") with the technical term linked. We don't want to make the article so people can't understand it but we are in the position of introducing new concepts to readers so let's take advantage of that. W ealso don't want to talk down to our audience, there's no telling who they might be. Padillah (talk) 18:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Padillah. Excellent recommendation.

173.180.106.108 (talk) 20:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

"Highest exaltation would be achieved through "plural marriage""?

Another problem with wording here. Under theology of family it reads,

"Smith taught that the highest exaltation would be achieved through "plural marriage" (polygamy),[354] which was the ultimate manifestation of this New and Everlasting Covenant.[358] Plural marriage allowed an individual to transcend the angelic state and become a god[359] by gaining an "eternal increase" of posterity."

I've read through the reference to Foster and found nothing to suggest that the highest exaltation is exclusive to participants in plural marriage. She does infer that as celestial marriage brings the highest exaltation, then multiple celestial marriages would enhance or expand such. But this does not exclude non-participants in multiple marriage from the highest exaltation.

I suggest a correction to,

"Smith taught that the highest exaltation could be achieved through eternally sealed marriages (including plural marriages) performed by Priesthood authority,[354] which were the ultimate manifestation of this New and Everlasting Covenant.[358]These marriages allowed an individual to transcend the angelic state and become a god[359] by gaining an "eternal increase" of posterity."

173.180.116.53 (talk) 17:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

I agree the Lawrence Foster reference does not quite go as far as the article text, although there are other references that do. Your suggested language may also have support in other mainstream sources, but probably not in Foster. His view was that plural marriage was a "particularly exalted" form of celestial marriage. Though he did not quite say that plural marriage results in a higher exaltation, he came very close to saying that. Foster certainly did not say that one could achieve the highest exaltation through monogamous celestial marriages. I have some thoughts on how to change the language in the article, and some possible additional sources to use, but I don't have time to add them now. If it turns out that the prominent sources disagree, we can deal with that. COGDEN 06:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks COgden. For the prominent sources following, the issue here is that the text seems to imply that Smith taught that the highest exaltation available is exclusive to plural marriage participants. This is not accurate as the highest exaltation has always been taught to be available to those marrying one wife as well. Whether or not plural marriage is "particularly exalted" (how much higher can the highest exaltation go?) or was taught as such is a bit of a fringe issue when it is already stated clearly that plural marriage could lead to the highest exaltation. Especially given the fact we are looking to shorten this article up.

173.180.116.53 (talk) 17:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

COgden, upon further reading, all I could find in which Foster says plural marriage is a higher exaltation revolves around the logic (not necessarily mine) that since the main work of exalted beings will be the increase of posterity, they will be more efficacious with multiple spouses. Even if this assumption is true it still does not alter the reality that there does not seem to be sufficient evidence that Smith taught specifically that the higher exaltation is exclusive to only those who enter into plural marriage. 173.180.116.53 (talk) 17:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

When we refer to "higher exaltation", we are not necessarily talking about the highest of the three "degrees" of the Celestial Kingdom, which I think you are referring to. Unlike your entrance into a Kingdom, or your merit of a "degree" within that Kingdom, Smith did not see exaltation as something you "arrive at". Exaltation was a gradual process achieved by increasing your posterity in the afterlife. The greater your kingdom of heavenly posterity, the higher your exaltation. Foster's point is only that those who entered polygamy would have a higher exaltation than those who did not. It's hard to dispute Foster's conclusion, because Smith and Young encouraged Mormons to enter into the practice on those grounds. It's not that monogamists were "excluded" from anything. They still got their exaltation, but their exaltation would always be in second place behind that of the polygamists because their kingdom would grow more slowly. COGDEN 23:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't argue with what Joseph or Brigham may have said to those being encouraged (called?) to enter into plural marriages. But I still don't see any exclusionary evidence. I just don't think Foster's point warrants the wording as it stands (i.e. giving the impression that Joseph taught that non-polygamists could not achieve the highest of exaltation). It's a horrible analogy but I think of two people invited to a feast (one skinny, the other very large by weight). I don't question that one might enjoy the feast more, but the reality stands that both will be "fully" blessed. I see nothing in what Smith taught collectively to dispute this position. I'm not asking that Smith's teachings be ignored, just that they be used in a context which is not confusing or unintentionally misleading. Smith never taught that only polygamists would achieve the "highest exaltation." You could argue that he taught they would be more effective or satisfied within their exalted state, if so that is the way it should read in the article.

i.e. "Smith taught that based on the expanded celestial family structure those accepting polygamy would realize even greater (joy/efficacy/success/blessings) as exalted beings."

That seems to be what Foster and you are saying, so is there anything wrong with saying something like that?

It is just a start, and I don't say I even agree with it, (something about the nature of an infinite eternity, what is infinity times 3, and my feeling that family design is not a numbers game or a race seems to this post-polygamy LDS guy to make me feel quite comfortable with one celestial mortgage) but it is still better (IMHO) than it stands now.

173.180.106.108 (talk) 21:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

I think I see what you are saying Canadiandy and I'd lean toward using either "Efficacy" or "Success" (in that order) because they represent concrete measurements of expansion. I think stating that one person would experience more "joy" in exaltation would either be missleading or would require an explanation of exaltation that is out of place in this article. Padillah (talk) 12:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Padillah. Good point.

So, I'm comfortable with, "Smith taught that based on the expanded celestial family structure those accepting polygamy would realize even greater success as exalted beings."

COgden, can you find a Smith reference for this? 173.180.106.108 (talk) 15:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

I think the point is, based on Foster and several other references, that there is really no such thing as the "highest exaltation" in an absolute sense. It is the "highest" only in the sense that one person's exaltation his higher than that of another. Elohim's exaltation will forever be "higher" than yours and mine, but even his exaltation will continue to increase. His point is that those who enter plural marriage will, at any given time, have a higher exaltation (relatively speaking) than a monogamist, though the monogamist will eventually reach, at time B, the high level of exaltation a polygamist had at time A. But at both times A and B, the polygamist will have a higher exaltation than the monogamist.

But I don't think it's accurate to say that Smith taught polygamists would have greater "joy" in the afterlife. I think he believed that every exalted person would have a "fullness of joy" (Psalm 16:11; 2 Nephi 1:22), whatever that exactly means. The height of one's exaltation has more to do with the greatness of your heavenly kingdom, rather than your joy. As to "efficacy" or "success", that implies that there is a point in the afterlife at which you have "arrived" and "succeeded". But the very nature of the term "eternal progression" denies the existence of any such end state, except to the extent that you have simply been successful in entering the Celestial Kingdom. But as I mentioned earlier, the fact that you have entered the Celestial Kingdom tells you nothing about the extent and greatness of your heavenly kingdom, which Smith believed would continue to grow forever as long as you had at least one priesthood marriage. COGDEN 21:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

COgden. I'm a little confused here. I understand how Foster's argument about exaltation works. But I think he might be reading a little more into what Joseph believed or taught than is really there. In what I have read it seems more like Joseph was merely teaching that the exaltation of those who were directed to participate in plural marriages was just as conditional as those of us today who are capable of entering into temple marriage. I don't doubt (or believe) Joseph might have discussed the "Foster Logic" as encouragement to those hesitant to enter into plural marriage. But I think this confusing speculation of how much exaltation one receives would be better discussed in the article "Mormonism and Polygamy."

Kindly,

173.180.106.108 (talk) 22:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

I agree COgden. I think we are getting a little far afield. From what I understand, "Exaltation" is the highest degree of glory in the celestial kingdom. You can't get any higher, period. However, if you have more progeny your "exaltation" will have an opportunity to reach more souls. This is why I suggested "efficacy" as my first choice in rewording, that's what I see as the difference: polygamy is more efficient at producing souls than monogamy. And I believe this is the pith of Foster's argument. Padillah (talk) 18:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

@Canadiandy, as to the conditionality of exaltation, Smith taught that you do not actually become heavenly kings and queens until you receive the "fulness of the priesthood" (i.e., the second anointing). Before then, you are only anointed "to become" kings and queens of your heavenly kingdom. The conditionality of that didn't depend on whether you were a monogamist or a polygamist. I don't think that Foster is saying that plural marriage ensures your exaltation. (Though Smith did essentially tell a few people that marriage to him would ensure their exaltation, which is only because Smith had received his second anointing and believed he was sealed to his exaltation as long as he didn't blaspheme the Holy Ghost, and he would be taking all his wives with him.)

But going back to the main point, I don't think what Foster says is anything revolutionary. He's not saying anything different from what Bushman, Compton, and others are saying. And even today, this is all pretty standard LDS theology (though with the polygamy angle de-emphasized and not really talked about much). Mormons today believe in what they now call "eternal progression", which simply means that your exaltation is more a process than a destination. Exaltation is not, in itself, the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom. We don't even know, for sure, what Smith meant when he apparently divided the upper Kingdom into three degrees, and whether he stuck with that theory, given that he only mentioned it once and never said more. Exaltation is not arrival at a subdivision of heaven. It is what happens to those who enter that subdivision of heaven, and it is an eternal and unending process. It makes perfect sense, under Smith's theology, to say that one person (e.g., a polygamist, or Elohim) can have a higher exaltation than another person (e.g., a monogamist) even if they are both in the same division of the same heavenly kingdom. COGDEN 21:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Respectfully COgden, I think we're into a semantic deadlock. The term 'Exaltation' here seems to be used as a verb and a noun. I lean towards the understanding that it is most commonly used by Joseph and his followers as a noun. If you were to ask most LDS what is meant by the term, they would likely respond that it is, in itself, the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom. Whether it is the top third of the Celestial Kingdom is not the point, but that it is the inheritance (noun not verb)of eternal progression is the best understanding we seem to receive from Joseph and his followers.

You state that the common understanding in the Church is that exaltation is more a process, I disagree. No I don't disagree that it is also a process, but I do hold that it is primarily an achievement or an accomplishment. Thus Elder Legrande Richards' quote that "To a Latter-Day Saint, salvation without exaltation is damnation." And Elder Russell M. Nelson's quote that, "To be exalted—or to gain exaltation—refers to the highest state of happiness and glory in the celestial realm."

Again, I commend your knowledge on the subject, but I still say that Joseph never intended to imply that only through polygamy could Saints inherit the "highest heaven," or a higher degree within it.

But it seems we are at a mere stalemate here and so I will step away from the topic if you wish the article to stand as is. 173.180.106.108 (talk) 22:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

I think that to contradict Foster's analysis in this way, you have to find a mainstream source showing that Joseph Smith equated exaltation with the "highest degree" of the Celestial Kingdom. But I don't think such a source exists. Smith only mentioned gradations within the "celestial glory" one time, and when he did, he did not equate it with exaltation. Rather, he said that for those who did not achieve this glory, that would be the end of their kingdom and it would not increase. Thus, you could easily interpret that to say that they were exalted to a kingdom, but their exaltation would not further increase.

Note that I'm not saying that Smith used "exaltation" as a verb. It was still always a noun. Exaltation means the state of being exalted (lifted up), and Smith believed that among those who inherited the highest degree of celestial glory, they would never cease being "lifted up". Foster and others say that Smith taught that some (like polygamists) would be lifted higher and faster than others. That's what we're stuck with unless you can find a mainstream source that says Smith taught otherwise. Also, Foster did not say that only polygamists would inherit the highest heaven. Both monogamists and polygamists would inhabit the highest heaven, it's just that the polygamists there would, at any moment, have a higher exaltation than otherwise-equally-situated monogamists. COGDEN 05:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Tentative GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr./GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

This article has been disputed heavily with regards to it's neutrality. Some of these are old, but some are relatively recent. What is the consensus, is this article stable and neutral enough to be a GA? I would appreciate it if someone could give an up-to-date statement regarding the neutrality debate. Obvious neutrality is a clear requirement for a GA. Reviewer: ^~Gosox⁽⁵⁵⁾₍₅₅₎ 17:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Gosox,

I'm a bit of a vocal outsider here so take my input for what it's worth.

From my position the article is quite inflammatory in overall tone (thus the frequent input by myself and others highly offended in the LDS community), long, over-sourced, and dependent on unstable sources. Many argue that Brodie is the most prominent on the subject, but as many would gladly source another researcher with less academic baggage (much speculation on her methods and bias). The other researcher cited frequently is touted by contributors as a faithful Mormon, yet this is a red herring as the majority of his research (in his book "A Rough Stone Rolling") was purposely aimed at finding the subject's flaws. This does not exclude his research but does beg the question about balance in the article. I know there are many who would like to see this article GAed as recognition of their efforts, but I think we need to remember this is not an article about pomegranates, it is about an important religious figure to a large faith community, and prudence and sensitivity should be considered before expediting this article's approval prematurely.

Thanks.

173.180.112.66 (talk) 17:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

Surely you all agree that both sides should be presented, correct? I mean, if there's a debate, we can't just show one side. We need to include all opinions (at least all mainstream ones). I plan to ask for a second opinion, as I don't know much about the subject and am new to the GAN process, as this is clearly contested. The article does seem to use multiple sources. GA promotion is not for anyone, it is for the article.^~Gosox⁽⁵⁵⁾₍₅₅₎ 18:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe the article remarkably neutral. Most criticism of the article's neutrality has come from, on one side, arch-conservative Mormons (like my friend Canadiandy above, who doesn't trust the scholarship of Richard Bushman, the best-known historian among members of the LDS Church) and a few vocal anti-Mormons on the other.--John Foxe (talk) 18:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll give my perspective as a major contributor. This article has been quite stable for several months, prior to which there was a major effort by several editors to improve the article and document it with sources. To my knowledge, there have been no real edit wars, and I think the article is remarkably stable given its controversial subject matter. This may be due to the fact that the article is so heavily documented with well-regarded sources and citations, and it is hard to argue with the sources.

As to neutrality, because of the highly-controversial subject matter, there will always be some editors who think the article is biased either for or against Mormonism. I think the article strikes a good balance. The two most heavily-cited sources are to Smith's two most prominent biographers: Bushman, a Mormon apologist whose work is well regarded by both Mormon and non-Mormon scholars, and Brodie, a "cultural" Mormon who was skeptical of Smith's prophetic claim, but whose work was the predominant Smith biography for a generation. Though the most heavy reliance is on Bushman and Brodie, other prominent views and sources of information about Smith have not been ignored, including the views of Mormon apologetic scholars other than Bushman, and non-Mormon sources.

From time to time, a Mormon editor arises on the talk page with a passionate complaint that the article is "anti-Mormon." However, I think this is to be expected and does not affect the article's merit as a good article. Mormons have an acute interest in this subject because Smith is their revered prophet. Some Mormons have ingrained within their soul an idealized and simplified view of Smith based on what is taught in LDS Church publications and at the pulpit. This image of Smith does not necessarily correspond to the more complex and human image of Smith that arises from the consensus of scholarly sources. To many Mormons, any portrayal of Smith other than the idealized, simplified version, will be offensive. That's not to say, however, that all Mormons will find this article offensive. I happen to be a Mormon, and I think the article is a fair and academically-honest presentation of Smith. The most cited source, Bushman, is a Mormon apologist, and much of the material that is controversial to some Mormons is presented and acknowledged by Bushman himself. There is nothing in this article that would surprise any Mormon scholar who has studied the life of Joseph Smith. COGDEN 18:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I was honestly quite surprised by the outrage on the talk page and figured as much. The article seemed relatively neutral to me. I am of the belief that perfect neutrality is impossible, but this article does pretty well. I would say that it meets the criteria for neutrality. Reading through the peer reviews, one concern has been length. There are certainly longer FAs, and this is just GA, so I don't think it's absolutely an issue. I'm assuming that the issues raised in the recent peer review have been addressed? ^~Gosox⁽⁵⁵⁾₍₅₅₎ 20:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I saw the nomination, reviewed comments here and in talk, then reviewed article. Generally I found it to be ok, but there were a few mild instances of bias (like calling Smith a prophet in lead, as if this is objective category, like 'lawyer'); or some tortured passages, scarred from past battles I suspect. Anyway, I made a few minor adjustments, carefully reviewing footnotes and citations, trying to find some better NPOV phrasing. User John Foxe reverted all of my multiple edits, three times at this count, to "his" earlier version without discussion in talk. So we clearly have some issues ongoing here.Tao2911 (talk) 22:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

For the record, and as an "arch-conservative" LDS member, I completely and wholeheartedly disagree, but I'm clearly outnumbered. Given the fact the majority view disregards most LDS perspectives (except those critical of their own faith) as NPOV I see GA of the article as now a foregone conclusion. But I am glad that Wikipedia maintains an article history as I suspect future contributors with a greater sensitivity and courtesy will look back at this treatment of Joseph Smith as merely a reflection of our present society's cynicism toward the LDS faith. In fact it might be a perfect case study. But again, that is my minority view in a world where majority rules. But don't worry, most of us LDS are used to criticism so we'll shrug it off as we always have. So damn the torpedoes (and the Mormons?), full steam ahead. I'm not bitter, disappointed, sure. Surprised, a little. But when I think of the fact that a self-professed Mormon cynic who thinks Joseph Smith was an evil man has been given the greatest latitude in defining our most revered prophet of this dispensation I just remind myself that time, as always, is on the side of truth. And as the Christian hymn states, "God is his own interpreter / And he will make it plain." (I suspect the word 'plain' was used in the hymn because they couldn't find anything that rhymed with 'using fewer than 430 notations'). While I would ask that you reconsider your position, I thank you for at least considering my input with respect, Gosox. I remain, that much-maligned, Mormon meliorist, 173.180.112.66 (talk) 23:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

The neutrality of this article is adequately demonstrated by the comments of the last two editors, the first of whom believes the article too pro-Mormon, the second, too anti-Mormon.--John Foxe (talk) 10:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

As an active editor (most active I'd warrant) with some possible "ownership" issues, I think John Foxe should not be making assessments, or commenting at allTao2911 (talk) 14:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC) here...

• Second Opinion. Per request at WP:GAN, I am here to assist User:Gosox5555's GA review by giving my own views as to the article's quality, and specifically, its neutrality.
  I see no outstanding issues with the article that would prevent it from attaining Good Article status. It is neutral in tone, and appears to properly report history and beliefs without endorsement or forcing the reader to conclusions. I slightly prefer this lead revision over this lead revision, but both are of acceptable quality and the current quibbles over wording appear to be minor and in no danger of affecting the page's stability.
  Be aware, however, that I have not checked the page images for image policy compliance, nor reviewed any of the page references, and the final word on the matter of course goes to Gosox. --erachima talk 07:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• Update Thank you erachima for your second opinion. I have checked the images and they are all set. I just have to check out a few of the books from the library and make sure that a random sampling are accurate (and make sure that they are reliable). Sorry for the delays. ^~Gosox⁽⁵⁵⁾₍₅₅₎ 14:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Delays are really not an issue, the article has been up for review for a while and we appreciate that you are taking the time to review it. No rush. ...comments? ~BFizz 17:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - I do not disagree with any of the conclusions of the reviewer(s), but would like to point out that the article has quite a bit of WP:OVERLINKing. Examples include: Book of Mormon, golden plates, polygamy, Carthage, and many others. Also, links like "116 pages of manuscript", "taken it to heaven", "married her" and others are not intuitive. It is up to the main reviewer if this should affect the nomination, but I believe the article would be improved if these issues were addressed. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 16:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll give a few more days if anyone wants to address this, and I'll make my final call next Sunday or Monday if this has been addressed. I'm not sure that it affects the nomination, but it's still worth doing. ^~Gosox⁽⁵⁵⁾₍₅₅₎ 00:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Even if it's already a "good" article, reducing any extra or unintuitive links would make it even better. I can start with a conservative removal of links and address some of the specific issues above, but I imagine this will be a continuing process involving discussions on the talk page, because linking is to some extent a matter of taste, balance, and style. COGDEN 00:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Just one afterthought regarding the comments above: I think that 116 pages of manuscript is a reasonably intuitive piped link. It would be a bit unclear, for example, to refer to them as "lost 116 pages" prior to their loss. However, there's a chance we can even avoid this issue by only linking to the sub-article after the pages are actually lost. COGDEN 01:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

We will indeed address issues with overlinking and easter eggs, but please remember that these are minor issues compared to the main points of WP:Good article criteria. Thanks. ...comments? ~BFizz 00:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Tentative Weaponbb7's GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Prose is good for the most part bu euphemisms like "sectarian fervor of their day" needs clean up. I see a lot of "Some say" failing WP:WEASEL particularly the way " Some secular scholars argue that the witnesses thought they saw the plates with their "spiritual eyes," Who are these Scholars? How many hold the View? Does it matter if they are secular? also "The old Jackson Countians resented the Mormon newcomers for various political and religious reasons." makes me uneasy.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   An article on a important historical figure should include more books from Academic presses but the Biographers all look reliable. So while i have reservations about it meets the letter of the law on sourcing

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   l would consider incorporating more of the Origin of Latter Day Saint polygamy as this seems to be minimized. Incorporate Criticism of Joseph Smith, Jr. into the prose. As these seem to have been minimized or left out entirely. Also include a Bibiolography of his works. He was a prolific writer portions of Works relating to Joseph Smith, Jr. should be listed here.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   I am concerned here with the Bias as this seems to overly praiseful. Critical Commentary seems to been left out or minimized

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Seems stable no major edit wars recently

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Looks good here.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Articles on New religious movement are always contentious topics and their founders often bear the brunt of such contention. This article has some severe flaws with bias as it lacks critical commentary of this figure. Sourcing seems to meet criteria for WP:GA but will likely not completely pass muster at FA. It fails mostly on the Bias as there is legitimate criticisms and expansion on the more controversial aspects of his theology especially the plural marriage aspect. Though excellently sourced the bias shows. The overall prose is flowery and full of euphemisms making it encyclopedic though an artful in its use. This article is good but needs improvement.Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:25, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

responses

For what it's worth, I'm a non-Mormon (in fact, a "never-been-a-Mormon") who believes this encyclopedia article is about as unbiased and nicely balanced as any piece about Joseph Smith can be. I wish to be respectful here, but I think what Weaponbb7 interprets as pro-Mormon bias stems from his own lack of familiarity with the literature.--John Foxe (talk) 20:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I've started a few sections on the article's talk page regarding 1) a bibliography and 2) the coverage of criticism/polygamy. I agree with Foxe that the article is balanced, and know that several editors feel the article is too critical. I'd like to see some examples from the text which Weaponbb7 considers "overly praiseful". ...comments? ~BFizz 21:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

My questions and comments on Weaponbb7's comments:

1. What is "sectarian ferver of their day" a euphemism for? Do you have any other examples of euphemisms?
2. "Some secular scholars argue" is not a "weasel word" situation, because the identity of the actual secular scholars who say that are set forth in the cited references.
3. As to wishing that there were more works from academic presses, this is not a situation where there books from academic presses exist but are not cited. You can be assured that the most prominent, respected sources are cited for this article, and their frequency of citation is roughly in proportion to their prominence in the field.
4. You argue that to enhance the "breadth of coverage", we should include more depth on the subject of polygamy. I think you are confusing breadth with depth. This is a very broad overview article, and there are numerous topics that could be covered in a lot of detail. I don't think you can say that this article minimizes Smith's polygamy, given the limited amount of space we have available.
5. As to being "overly praisful": I'm not aware of any part of the article that either praises or trashes Smith. ::There is a passage that says that Mormons revere him, but that's just stating the obvious. I also think we need some specific examples of where you think critical commentary has been minimized or left out. My sense is that critical sources and perspectives are well represented, and some would say that they predominate the article.

COGDEN 22:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok I knew i have some flack from people who worked so hard on it and have done a pretty desecent job. this is normal type of reaction is normal

"sectarian ferver of their day" its not the type of language that is not good in a Encyclopedia its very flowery language. There is a fair bit of flowery language here which could be reduced to more simple and precise words. "well-to-do neighbor"

Below the Infobox in there is Template that says says "This article is part of the series Joseph Smith, Jr." Than list the subjects "the polygammy" and "Criticism" Among other things sections that were left out of the article. I do not know why these two were left out but they were so i have to question why? leaving those two out seemed odd to leave out I had to question why?

"Legacy" seems an odd choice of words for a section it makes it sound like the page is memorial.

Classic example of language I am concerned about "Historians regard Joseph Smith as one of the most imaginative, charismatic, and controversial leaders in American religious history." Its stated but this needs to be expanded as it is not clear to me reading it what is "imaginative" about what he has done? and again why is he "controversial leaders." this could substatially expanded by a few paragraphs.

"On matters of public policy, Smith favored a strong central bank and high tariffs to protect American business and agriculture. Smith disfavored imprisonment of convicts except for murder, preferring efforts to reform criminals through labor; he also opposed courts-martial for military deserters. " is complexly uncited could use citation. critical Commentary might involve some scholarly Analysis of his action Stephen A. Kent wrote a good one a few years ago that might be useful as an example or as a useful reference

I would argue that "Some Scholars" is weaselly... just name the scholars who say so!

Over all I think this article is pretty good. The Actual Biography portion of his life is so well done I can't find anything wrong with it. I think I will give this the thumbs up once the flowery language is cleared up and the legacy section is rewritten to include the scholarly analysis of him. Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

An example of the type of commentary I would look for: http://caliber.ucpress.net/doi/pdfplus/10.1525/nr.2010.13.3.34

[12]

[13]

[14] This is the kind of stuff i might be looking for Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I did not intend my comments to be interpreted as "flak". In fact, I welcome your review and thank you for your interest. I mostly just want to understand your thoughts and begin a dialogue, because although everybody seems to agree this is a "good" article, these issues will come up if and when the article is nominated for "featured" status.

I think I understand what you are saying about "flowery" language. I read a lot of language of this style, and this might be more a matter of opinion and taste, than correctness, but if any editor thinks the language is too flowery, this is easily changed.

I also think I understand your concerns about the "legacy" and non-biographic sections. (But as to the naming of the "legacy" section, I think that is in line with many other biographical articles on Wikipedia which have "legacy" sections. For example, see John Calvin, Walter Huber, John Knox, Gregory of Nazianzus, and many other featured articles.) I think what you'd like to see is a mini-history of Joseph Smith-related criticism, and I don't disagree. But I would not use the "criticism" sub-article as a model. I'm not at all happy with the "criticism" sub-article, which is not even really about Joseph Smith-related criticism. It's more a simple repository for factoids about Joseph Smith that some authors think are more or less embarrassing. To the extent these facts and trivia are treated extensively in the literature, they are indeed included in the article. What I think you are looking for is something quite different: a brief history of Joseph Smith-related criticism through the ages, from Eber Dudley Howe to the Tanners.

The challenge in creating a brief Joseph Smith-related criticism section, though, is to make it sufficiently brief. We would have to cover the most notable critics of Smith, such as Howe, the Tanners, and a few others, without spending too much precious space. You included a few links as examples of what you would like to see included. The first one is Lawrence Foster's book, which is already cited in this article. I don't really see Foster's work as a criticism, though, as much as a simple historical analysis. Lawrence was just interpreting the historical record in a neutral, dispassionate way like any good historian. You also cite Woodbridge Riley's biography, which I don't think is cited here, but I also don't see Riley's biography as a criticism: it was more a psychohistory. In the case of Riley, I consider it to be somewhat obsolete, now far surpassed by Brodie's psychohistory which is cited extensively in the article. I've never seen Ainsworth's 1972 essay before, but it also appears to be a simple brief overview history, rather than a criticism. Or maybe I don't understand the use of these articles that you envision.

Pierce's 1899 article is also new to me, but his topic, the Spaulding Manuscript--is well known. The Spaulding theory was discredited and is no longer an extant Smith criticism among mainstream scholars, but if we include a brief history of Smith-related criticism, we will indeed have to include the Spaulding theory, which originated with Howe and lasted to the mid-20th century. There are probably better sources than Pierce for this, though. Brodie contains a really good history of the Spaulding theory.

On the issue of the complex sentence, I agree it should be better cited. I'll see what can be done.

COGDEN 02:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I've changed both examples of what Weaponbb7 considered "flowery language" above. Are there any other specific problems in matters of style?--John Foxe (talk) 18:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Update

There's a Second Opinion request and two reviews, and there appears to have been no activity on the GA Review for over a month. Who is actually doing the review? And is a Second Opinion still requested? Speed is not the priority in a GA Review, and if the review is still in progress that is fine, though an update comment would be useful at this point. SilkTork *^YES! 16:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The current status of the review is somewhat up in the air. As the submitter, I will contact the interested parties (particularly, the reviewers) and try to get some closure on this review in the next couple days. ...comments? ~BFizz 17:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't mean any offense, but when Weaponbb wrote,

"This article has some severe flaws with bias as it lacks critical commentary of this figure."

I was left wondering if he had read the right article. This whole article is nothing but a critical commentary.

Polygamist? treasure-hunter? Exorcist? Tried as disorderly? Power-grabbing? Military leader in retreat? "Dirty"? "Nasty"? Poor financial oversight? Intimidating? Pillaging? Media suppressor?

And that's all in the first half of the article! You can believe all that tripe, but surely you can't suggest the article lacks critical commentary. If that's praise, I'd hate to see what criticism is.

Is there anyone here that would argue that the majority of the references sources are not critics of Joseph? The only one I can find who is not cynically critical in their research is Bushman, and his writings were purposely aimed at finding Joseph's flaws. So Brodie gets to write, fair. And LDS Church Historians are excluded based on a sensitivity to POV, arguably fair. But for anyone to then suggest the article is not critical enough after all that?

My input is that this article has a strong structurally negative bias. I don't lay the fault so much with the contributors, as much as the framework of sources on which Joseph Smith's life has been myopically defined. Until the 1970s, the only academics who seemed to be writing (the consensus here is often that, unfortunately, Brodie is the best we have) about Joseph Smith had strong negative biases. And when you then take out the acceptance of LDS sources it is not surprising the article reads more like an expose'.

So my two bits. This article may be on hold for a few years until it can be fundamentally reworked. No, I do not expect it to look like a Mormon pamphlet. But, yes, I expect it to go back to the drawing board until there are more reliable historians (not merely anti-Mormon or even pro-Mormon cynics) who are not writing because they have an axe to grind. The problem is not the contributors, the problem is not the good will to balance this based on the evidence. The problem, I think, is with the very limited availability of reliable AND unbiased research.

Fawn Brodie was actually right when she wrote, "No man knows my history." And as Nibley referred to her research, "No, Ma'am, that's not history."

Feel free to slag a great religious leader, just take a little time before you do to notice the dove on top of the discussion page.

Canadiandy1 (talk) 06:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

Canadiandy, just because a writer is non-Mormon, that doesn't mean they have an "axe to grind" against Mormons. There's an "us versus them" mentality that many Mormons share, that is a hangover from persecutions in the 1800s. Many Mormons tend to suspect the motives of anyone writing about Mormonism who isn't a firm believer.

I don't know what "reliable historians" you have in mind that would surpass Bushman, Brodie, Quinn, Compton, Hill and Hill, Bloom, Brooke, Hullinger, Marquardt, Morgan, Widmer, Vogel, Van Wagoner, Walker, George Smith, Shipps, Remini, and Prince. These scholars all cite each other, and everybody cites them. They are all mainstream, and none of them is a polemical writer out to bash Mormons. In fact, many of them are devout Mormons, and a few others are what you might call "lapsed" Mormons who still identify with the religion. Several of them have no religious ties to Mormonism at all, but how can we hold that against them? We don't expect that only the Amish can can write neutral academic books about the Amish, or that only Jehovah's Witnesses can write neutral academic books about Jehovah's Witnesses. COGDEN 20:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

COgden,

Unfair. I never said that all non-Mormon writers have an axe to grind. But I do think that the majority of evidence written about Joseph Smith before the 1970s was inherently based in a 'love him/hate him' paradigm. Neither do I "...suspect the motives of anyone writing about Mormonism who isn't a firm believer." Your words, not mine. It was Charles Dickens who wrote,

"But I went on board their ship to bear testimony against them if they deserved it, as I fully believed they would; to my great astonishment, they did not deserve it; and my predispositions and tendencies must not affect me as an honest witness, I went over the Amazon's side, feeling it impossible to deny that, so far, some remarkable influence had produced a remarkable result, which better-known influences have often missed."

Last I checked Dickens was not a Mormon.

But forgive me a fair academic skepticism when I ask individuals writing on Joseph Smith the following;

1. What is your motivation in writing on Joseph Smith? 2. What will you use as your evidences and sources? 3. When you come across unproven or speculative evidences, how will you address them?

As an example, my non-Mormon father is in the process of writing a book on the history of Louis Riel. I asked him why, as there is no family/religious/historical connection whatsoever, he would write on such a topic. His reason is that since Riel was a polarizing figure, most of the histories he has read are founded in a positive or negative bias. As he is not on either side of the history he feels he would make a better writer on the topic for that very reason.

I think this is a perfect parallel to the problem with this article. Joseph Smith researchers may attempt neutrality, but their sources are largely drawn from wildly biased sources (those who loved him enough to write, or those who hated him enough to write). And no, I don't even blame the Mormon haters for this paradox. It's not a question of who's right and wrong, it's a question of when are we going to look for better sources that the 'poisoned tree' we've been eating from for so long.

One of the discussions we (I, sorry) debated for a long time related to the number of wives Joseph Smith was purported to have had. While DNA testing has yet to prove a single offspring from Joseph (except through Emma) the old records are given preferred treatment. I don't expect people to agree with my religious beliefs, I do expect the historians and contributors here to have the courage to admit that not enough is truly 'known' about Joseph to fly this article as an accurate depiction (Good Article) of who Joseph Smith was. It seems amazingly Quixotic to do so.

You make the point that several "scholars all cite each other, and everybody cites them." I suspect if we sat them down and asked them if they were happy with the quality of evidence available to them they would say pretty much what I'm saying here, It's too bad Joseph Smith was such a polarizing figure, because it's hard to know which, of any of the early chroniclers can be trusted. And those that are worth their salt would be saying something like, we're just scratching the surface of Joseph Smith, the only thing Brodie got right is when she quoted Smith's own words, "No man knows [his] history."

Hey, look. A windmill.

Canadiandy1 (talk) 01:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

Never known the GA review process of an article to take this long. I think they should hurry up and make the decision. Although personally, I think there's still work to be done for it can be passed, its best if they make their judgement on this and what needs to be done sooner rather than later. Any activity on the page is dead, possibly because certain individuals have scared people off from editing it. Routerone (talk) 14:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Canadiandy, you are going to have to be specific about what primary source factual information about Joseph Smith you think is "biased" against him. We actually shouldn't really care much about the primary sources when we have such comprehensive and well-regarded recent secondary sources. We can't go "over the heads" of secondary sources to provide our own spin on the primary sources. The recent secondary sources like Bushman, Brodie, and all the other scholars have already made determinations on primary source reliability and we can't substitute our judgment for theirs.

Frankly, though, the majority of the information that these recent scholars based their writings on was written by Joseph Smith's closest and greatest admirers, including his scribes and historians, close friends, his wife and family, the three witnesses of the golden plates, etc., who had the greatest first-hand access to Smith and thus were in the best position to know the facts. The secondary sources have recognized the reliability of a very small number of hostile primary sources (e.g., Willard Chase, Isaac Hale), in part because they agree with other sources or have other indicia of reliability. But we'll leave such primary source reliability issues to the peer-reviewed scholars.

I totally disagree with you that historians are basically ignorant about Smith's life. We know an incredible amount of information about Smith. Smith made sure of that. From early-on, he was very interested in preserving his history. We know far more about him than most historical figures of his era. When Brodie noted Smith's statement that "[n]o man knows my history", it was 1945. It was not because knowing Smith's history is impossible--it was because in 1945 the existing histories of Joseph Smith written by both Mormons and anti-Mormons had only a very loose connection to what historians consider to be reliable history. In 1945, there was no such thing as neutral academic Mormon studies. Brodie saw her job as an attempt to rectify that by producing the first modern academic Smith biography. COGDEN 03:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Since neither reviewer promoted the article to GA status (and both seem to have retired...) I've marked this as a failed nomination. ...comments? ~BFizz 01:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Not only that, it seems that Weaponbb7's account was taken over by a Nazi meat puppet (I'm not joking). I hope that never happens to my account. Now he's User:ResidentAnthropologist.

The article could probably just be re-nominated right away. We've made a lot of edits addressing all the above issues, and even before those edits, Gosox seemed to be inclined to pass it. I think Weaponbb7's primary concern that the article is too pro-Mormon is unreasonable, and baffling to anyone familiar with the mainstream secular academic sources on which this article is based, or anyone who has read the decidedly apologetic Brittanica article on Joseph Smith written by Richard Bushman. It's unfortunate that Weaponbb7 didn't provide us with more information on his views, because I'm sure there are other editors like him. He may have a unique perspective as (apparently) an anthropologist with an interest in the "anti-cult" movement. I'd like to know if he envisions this article reading more like the Raëlian beliefs and practices article for example, which has been promoted to good article status. I think the Raëlism article is reasonably neutral under the circumstances, but I don't see how it is more neutral than this article.

But still, is there anything we could do to further improve neutrality? We're already far more neutral than Brittanica, but how do we get to the point where no angry Mormon or anti-cultist has a rational leg to stand on to attack the article's neutrality? COGDEN 01:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Image issues

A disagreement on whether a user-generated, artistic illustration of an historical event should be captioned to explain its origins, or included in the article at all. Peter ^Isotalo 06:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The image File:JosephSmithTranslating.jpg appears to be a modern photographic interpretation by a non-notable person of Smith's use of seer stones. As such, it's unclear why it should be included here at all.

I also find it strange that most the historic illustrations lack captions that clearly state their origins, something that seems especially important for images produced by the LDS-movement itself.

Peter ^Isotalo 23:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

According to the Manual of Style, we should "Use captions to explain the relevance of the image to the article". Images are included to illustrate the topic of the article, not just to showcase the image itself. Captioning an image with a description of itself would typically only be appropriate if it were the work of an artist who is the subject of the article. See also the image use policy page. Documentation of what each images is and where it came from are found on the individual image's description page.

I'm not in love with the particular image you linked, but we don't really have any analogous free images available that depict the same thing. ...comments? ~BFizz 17:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the existing image is good, and we should keep it unless we find something better that retains its historical accuracy. If I could choose any image, though, I'd probably pick the (Michael) Clane Graves drawing that was reproduced with the 1982 Van Wagoner & Walker article in Dialogue (see link), which is historically accurate except that Smith's hat was actually white. However, that drawing is not free. If we really think having a work by a professional artist would be an improvement to the article, maybe somebody could contact Clane Graves and get his permission, assuming he still owns the rights. He has a website: http://www.clanegraves.com COGDEN 19:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Captions seems to be the appropriate guideline here. It lacks strict rules on what a caption should include, but it does have plenty of suggestions for what kind of information is deemed relevant or interesting to readers, and that includes info about origins. In an article about a religious leader with so much mythical aura built up about him, the origin of all descriptions, whether they be in the form of texts or images, should be made as obvious as possible.

I've added[15] some information to the images where it wasn't clear. I don't believe it amounts to a irrelevant distraction to readers, and it certainly doesn't make them less informative.

By these replies I assume that the looking-into-the-hat-image in the article is some type of re-enactment of Joseph Smith's translation. Unless this reenactment was made by a notable person and documented by a notable photographer, I have doubts whether the image is really appropriate for Wikipedia. The problem really boils down to neutrality, since a modern reenactment of an historical event by an anonymous, non-notable individual is too subjective. If no free images exist, it would seem more appropriate to go for a fair use-usage. Either way, the caption must be changed to something that clearly states what the image actually depicts, not what its creator intended it to depict.

Peter ^Isotalo 10:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Although a bit crude, the looking-into-the-hat-image is based on the eye-witness testimony of at least seven people, both believers and non-believers, and the depiction is closer to the historical record than say, the images of Smith's murder or his tar-and-feathering. The burden is on you to prove that the image is "too subjective" or that its inclusion violates some Wikipedia rule.--John Foxe (talk) 11:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

John, since you're the uploader, I think it would be helpful explained in more detail how the image came about. There is no metadata available whatsoever beyond the license. What are we actually looking at here?

Going from text to image is a pretty big leap in terms of conveying information, and involves oodles of interpretative choices. What the historical textual evidence says is obviously not an issue here, but rather that the perceptions of the person who mad the image is a representation of a POV. The illustrations by Mormon artists and Harper's naturally have their own POVs, and they may not even be historically accurate, but they are notable, which qualifies them for inclusion. This image does not appear to fulfill that requirement, "historically accurate" or not. That there are no contemporary illustration or modern freely licensed images of this particular event doesn't seem like a valid reason to start including user-generated imagery.

Peter ^Isotalo 13:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The genesis of this image occurred two years ago when another editor tried to add the Clane Graves drawing to this article as a fair-use image. It was immediately deleted by another editor with the comment that such a drawing was too generic to rise to the level of notability, just a guy in a chair with his face in a hat, that anyone could draw such a picture. I knew I couldn't. But I also knew that I had a relative who could. Voilà, a free image—more roughly done than the Graves drawing but having the virtue of a more historically accurate "white" top hat.

Now it's your turn to explain why you believe user-generated imagery violates Wikipedia rules, why inaccurate nineteenth-century illustrations are preferable to historically accurate modern ones, and how this image specifically is "too subjective."--John Foxe (talk) 18:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for providing the information, John. It explains a lot. I've tweaked the caption to reflect what you've told here. I also think it would be great if you supplied verifiable documentation that Graves actually is the artist of the linked picture. It may be in the links you've supplied, but I had great difficulty finding the connection.

As for the reinterpretation of a very modern interpretation of an event like this, it's a very very odd thing to include in any article. The image of Smith sitting on a chair with his face in a hat doesn't appear to be iconic or important in of itself and Graves doesn't appear to be a particularly notable character. If anything, his drawing doesn't approach the documentary quality or the spiritual significance of any of the other images in the article. I agree with the sentiment of the previous editor: a rough image of a man with his face in a hat can be drawn by just about any amateur artist and as such is inherently non-notable. Its purpose seems to be more narrative than illustrative to me. You're welcome to prove me wrong on the notability bit, though.

Peter ^Isotalo 23:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

No, that's illegitimate, Peter. Every drawing in the article is an "artistic interpretation." And you've missed what the earlier commentator was trying to communicate: that Graves' drawing couldn't be used as a fair-use image, but that a free image of the same event would be fine—which it has been for the last two years. (I'm not sure why you had difficulty finding Graves' connection to the Dialogue picture; the drawing is signed at the bottom.)

I note that you've ignored my request to explain three things: why you believe user-generated imagery violates Wikipedia rules, why inaccurate nineteenth-century illustrations are preferable to historically accurate modern ones, and how this image specifically is "too subjective," which you claimed earlier. Also, on what grounds do you claim that Wikipedia images and creators of images must be "notable"?--John Foxe (talk) 00:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that adding source information to all captions in this article is not an improvement to the article. For the most part, the source information is not very relevant to the article's subject matter, and is simply too much information. If people want to learn more about the image source, they can click on the image and find out, which is generally how Wikipedia is designed to work: "click here if you want to learn more". WP:Caption states, "Unless relevant to the subject, do not credit the image author or copyright holder in the article." This is one of the reasons why, if you look at most featured articles, you rarely find this type of sourcing information in captions.

As to the image of Smith translating, this is an illustrative image. There is no requirement that Wikipedia images be notable, or that the captions "justify" them. In fact, Wikipedia is full of charts, diagrams, and illustrations created by Wikipedia editors. This particular image fills an important need to show how Smith translated the plates. The image simply illustrates how witnesses say Smith translated, and is quite neutral. Unless we can get rights to the Clane Graves drawing, we should keep it. Inserting a reference to Clane Graves, when his image is not actually used, is confusing and too much information. Any explanatory information about the drawing we might want to add should appear on the image's article page, not this article. COGDEN 03:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

John, I have not taken any general stance against user-generated imagery on Wikipedia. That's just simplistic. We're not talking about a diagram, chart or map here, something based on raw data such as statistics or locations on a map. Those kinds of illustrations don't require creative interpretation. This one clearly does, though, since it's a reinterpretation of a modern artistic interpretation that depicts something that happened 160 years in the past (of which no contemporary depictions appear to exist). An image like this is roughly the equivalent of making your own pencil drawing of Lincoln in the act of delivering the Gettysburg Address and inserting it in to the article about the event just because the event itself has never been depicted.

(As for Graves' signature, I simply missed it by looking for the credit in the text, so thanks for that.)

Cogden, how can it possibly be a problem to specify the origin of all illustrations in the article? You appear to have no problem in accepting short explanations of all other images. The hat-looking image is the only one that makes you stop and wonder where on earth it came from. It's also the picture with the most obviously confusing description since its caption in its current version literally says "this is Joseph Smith", which is blatantly false. And claiming that Graves is somehow irrelevant here is obviously not true. You've both explained quite clearly that his image is intended to be a replacement for it, and an interpretation of that work of art. And since this is a rather odd image that is made by a relative of a primary contributor, I think it's especially important not to try to pass it off as something completely neutral. Specifying the source of images is hardly an uncommon practice, not in normal articles or FAs. It's normally not done in as much detail for photos since they're often quite self-explanatory, but usually more conscientiously than done here. For recent examples see Symphony No. 8 (Mahler), Mozart in Italy and Baltimore Steam Packet Company. But keep in mind that those are all quite differnt from this image in the sense that none of them use a user-generated, non-photographic illustration that depicts a distant historical event. In my experience, this is something very unique.

Since we seem to be slightly stuck here, even on something as seemingly uncontroversial as providing the origins of the image in the caption, I think it's appropriate that I request comments from outside parties.

Peter ^Isotalo 06:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Peter, I'd like to outline what I perceive your beliefs to be about this issue. Feel free to correct me.

1. You believe that user-generated diagrams, charts, and maps "don't require creative interpretation."

2. You believe early twentieth-century images of something no one has seen (such as the stained glass window pictured in this article that portrays two deities as slightly different even though Smith said they were exactly alike) are fine, but modern historically accurate images are illegitimate.

3. You believe no Wikipedia rule excludes user-generated images but that you can make a judgment about their suitability anyway based on whether or not they are "something very unique."

--John Foxe (talk) 10:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I must admit, Peter, I am also confused by your stated objections to this image. Do you think the idea of sitting on a chair, resting your elbows on your knees, and covering your face with a hat is too difficult a position to re-imagine? And I'd dearly like to know what bias is implied by rendering an image of someone doing exactly what the description said they were doing. Graves is irrelevant because the existence of this free image has rendered his drawing unnecessary. It's not an interpretation of that work - it's an interpretation of the description provided by eye-witnesses. How is the origin of a photograph self-explanatory? You don't expect me to believe that you can tell who took a photo simply by the look of the photo, do you? I have no idea what your examples are supposed to represent. I found no illustrations in any of them much less attribution (except for a single Mozart painting). Please help us out by explaining your position in more depth. It may be self-evident to you but I'm missing the point completely. Padillah (talk) 18:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, I never liked the picture for a number of reasons. First, the fact Joseph Smith viewed the plates in a hat, on occasion, to translate seems to be one of those cliche' attacks on Joseph Smith. Have we never covered our head with a pillow to drown out noise when we are reading? Or put our hand up to shield the sun when using our cell phone? How is this really uniquely relevant except as a subtle way of discrediting Smith? Even with that aside, the picture is gloomy and drab (all browns), poorly drawn (when I first saw it I wondered what he was doing crying in a chair), and only forgivable by its style if it was an original print from the period. If it is a modern interpretation it is really bad art that a high School art student could represent better. How is the means of translation key to the discussion of Joseph's life? Canadiandy1 (talk) 21:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

On viewing the author of the image I see it is listed as John Foxe. I appreciate revealing it was actually your relative (by name) would threaten your anonymity, but in that case (as John Foxe is assumed a pseudonym) should it not be identified as author 'anonymous'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiandy1 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

We've been through this several times at this article, but let me reiterate that anyone who saw Smith translate said that he did so by burying his face in his hat. Not "on occasion"; every eyewitness says that this is the way he translated. Of course, the image is important because normally when a person translates a document, he looks at the text; he doesn't put out the lights and relegate the text to another room or take it outside to the woods.

As to the quality of the drawing: if a high school student could do better, then have one of your high school students do better. It's easy enough to replace a poorer image with a better one. I've been pleasantly surprised by a number of upgrades that have been made at Wikipedia Commons.

As to the whether the image should be anonymous or pseudonymous: I did consider crediting the image to "Anonymous" and then decided that if I did, it would not be clear that "Anonymous" had given his consent. By taking responsibility, I eliminated that problem. If you track back to the discussion archives two years ago, you'll see that I gave credit to my relative; in other words, there's been no attempt to deceive. Besides, I was the one who asked for a certain image to be drawn, and it was my camera that got the drawing to Wikimedia Commons.--John Foxe (talk) 14:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind the drawing itself - it does serve the purpose of illustrating what witnesses claim. However, my objections are on two issues: 1) I'm not convinced John has the copyright to upload the photo of the drawing, no matter who drew it, unless he's claiming he did; 2) as this was a drawing done at the request of John, is this not the visual equivelent of original research, as the drawing is itself, up until Wiki Commons, unpublished? Best, A Sniper (talk) 18:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Canadiandy, we can argue about whether about whether to include any image of Joseph Smith translating, but that's a separate question. Assuming it's a good idea, this is the best free depiction of Smith translating that exists. So we should use it, at least until something better comes along. Wikipedia does not bar images just because they happen to have been created or commissioned by an editor. These images are not considered original research. Actually, the creation of new images for illustrative purposes is, I think, encouraged. See, for example, m:Philip Greenspun illustration project. Moreover, the encyclopedic quality of imagesis given precedence over their artistic value.

I do think, by the way, that we need an image of Smith translating. His translation of the Book of the Mormon is probably the most notable thing that he ever did. I think it's at least as important as the illustration of Moroni giving him the plates, or of his assassination, or his entering Liberty jail.

A Sniper, the copyright clearance issue is a valid concern, but the image article page says that John Foxe owns the copyright, and unless anyone has evidence to the contrary, I think we can take that at face value as we do other such freely-licensed content created by users. COGDEN 19:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

This discussion has been tl;dr for me to really keep up with, but 1) I agree that we need an image of JSJr translating, and 2) I don't see any copyright or OR issues with the current image. ...comments? ~BFizz 14:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break

I am sure we can take it at face value, but I don't know about those reading the article who follow the links for a source. We shouldn't assume that all readers are contributors. The simple solution is to have it attributed to 'anonymous' or to 'relative of the contributor formerly known as John Foxe' or simply a cool symbol like the artist Prince used. :-)

The best image I've found is at http://www.imagesoftherestoration.org/blog/?p=8 . While I prefer the LDS stock photo at http://freebookofmormon.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/bom_translation.jpg , I realize it isn't juicy enough playing to the whole hat thing. I mean if we're looking for true accuracy what about the type of pants he would have been wearing? I agree with the last image (the one that looks like there is some weird glowing happening) being not great (no offense, but it looks like it draws more on the Catholic stylizations with the aura type thing depicted visually). I have no problems with Catholic art, gotta love the Sistine Chapel, it just doesn't seem to fit the depiction of a leader of a restorationist religion.

No offense meant, John, I know you meant well. I just think honesty here about our impressions are in order. I didn't hate it because it portrayed Joseph in a bad light, I just didn't like the art. Too cartoony or something. Canadiandy1 (talk) 23:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

Both the images you've referenced are better artistically, but neither is as accurate historically. The LDS image is deliberately deceptive, the other only unintentionally so.--John Foxe (talk) 10:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

John, your bias is showing again. I would respect an individual writing that the LDS image was inaccurate (critical opinion, but valid). But to write that it is "deliberately deceptive" makes me think you are looking to stir the pot here. How could you know the motivation or intent of the artist or publishers of the work? Please realize that when you write in such a manner it lessens your credibility. If you took offense at my dislike of the painting of your relative please realize it is strictly a dislike of the product, not the process or its creator. Apologies if I have offended.

Canadiandy1 (talk) 05:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

John, what is wrong with the "Images of the Restoration" image? He's on the steps, his head is buried in a white hat, he's all but in a different room than the scribe... other than the fact that he looks six years old (which is more an issue of scale than anything else - how big must those stairs be?) What is inaccurate about it that is much more accurate in the current image? However, I would have questions about it's free-use. Canadiandy, do you know the origins of this image? What is the status of it's copyright? This argument is academic if we can't get a valid release. Padillah (talk) 13:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again for being a true neutral voice here Padillah. I personally don't want to have anything to do with encouraging the author of "Images of Restoration" as he appears to be a bit of an anti-Mormon hack. In an effort to be neutral though I'd understand those in the community here contacting him for copyright. The contact links are all there.

Canadiandy1 (talk) 05:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

Neither Smith nor eyewitnesses ever claimed that Smith used exclusively one method to translate, nor that he sat in precisely the same place. Foxe appears to be pushing the current image because he feels it is most correct, but one issue is that it entirely neglects to address is the scribe. If the issue really is historical authenticity, then I'm surprised we haven't considered this detail yet. Unless I'm mistaken, Smith didn't write a word of the Book of Mormon; he always dictated to a scribe. It would be best if the image portrayed that. ...comments? ~BFizz 14:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Padillah, here are two minor problems and one major problem with the image, which is supposed to picture Smith dictating to Martin Harris. The minor problems are the shape of the hat (Smith used a top hat) and the grandeur of the cabin—there are too many stairs and balustrade is too elaborate for such a place. The major problem is that the artist has misunderstood Harris's statement that Smith dictated to him from "upstairs"—not "on the stairs."

B, I only favor the current image because it's the best thing available to us at this point. Find a free drawing of Smith dictating to a scribe with his head in his hat (the only method anyone saw him use), and I'll be happy to switch.--John Foxe (talk) 14:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The most authentic image, if it existed, would show Smith sitting on a chair in front of a decent-size table during daytime hours (i.e., no lamps or candles), resting his elbows on his knees, with his face buried in a white tophat, with Oliver Cowdery sitting across him on the other side of the table next to a stack of 16½x6⅝ manuscript pages, a few of them drying, with a quill pen, an inkwell, and a pen knife, writing on one of the manuscript pages. Maybe Emma could be in the background doing household chores. COGDEN 02:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The one thing we seem to agree on here is the need for the scribe to be portrayed. COgden and BFizz may have hit on what it was that was so unnerving about the picture. Without the fuller perspective it is a man, alone, looking depressed or closed, hunched over and looking (crying) into something. I say fix it, replace it with something else, or leave it out until we can find something better.Canadiandy1 (talk) 05:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

You said even a high school student could do better. If true, you can provide an improved drawing yourself.--John Foxe (talk) 09:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry I said it that way, I hadn't made the connection it was family when I did, John. Even then, I never took art in High School so I humbly admit a High School kid would do better than me, any day. And even if I could draw, I've said before that the fixation on the fact Joseph looked into a hat to translate is only relevant because it sounds juicy. If Joseph had written in pencil with a box of kleenex nearby nobody would care because it wouldn't be controversial. That said, I feel I have respected both sides of the issue in a neutral manner by accepting 'an' image of Joseph Smith using a hat, I just don't think it should be 'the' image we have at present because it is confusing in its effect and perspective. That's me putting on my 'neutral' hat.

I actually find the fascination with the fact Joseph Smith used a hat to help him focus during the transaltion process odd. I mean, has anyone ever found convincing evidence to suggest Joseph thought the hat had mystical properties. That might make it relevant. Until then I think of this fixation with hats as either spin, or something akin to Imelda Marcos' fixation with shoes.

My hat's off to a guy who could dictate such an amazing text with no notes (if he had them they'd have been unreadable in a covered hat, right). Canadiandy1 (talk) 00:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

The hat didn't have "mystical properties." It was the seer stone at the bottom that did.--John Foxe (talk) 01:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

So why then would we focus on the hat, and not the seer stone? A good image should be a summary of the process. Like showing the closet door of Imelda Marcos' shoe collection instead of an actual pair (or multiple pairs) of her shoes. As I see it the process involved Joseph viewing the stones, dictating what he saw, and then the words clearing when he had translated correctly. Him looking into a hat is secondary (and possibly trivial) to his described process. So either, a) include a replica or artistic depiction of the seer stone, or b) put in a picture of present-day Liberty Jail instead and include (or maintain) a correct depiction of the translation textually. I don't mean to belabor this one, but it seems common sense to me. I also sense a desire for improvement but a lack of desire or priority to make the needed change. So I'll let this one go for now. I just want to make the observation that there is dissatisfaction with it and that it remains on the to do list for improving the article.

Summary, I don't like it, most of us don't, but I can wait until we fix it later.

Canadiandy1 (talk) 01:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

I think it would be great to show the stone in addition to the hat, but unfortunately, while Smith was translating, the stone was inside the hat and not visible. While I have no fundamental problem with showing an artist's depiction of the stone (I really wish the church would bring it out of the First Presidency vault and let somebody photograph it), I don't think an artist's interpretation of the stone itself is as helpful to the reader as a depiction of him translating--in the act of doing the most notable single thing he ever did in his life. COGDEN 01:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Canadiandy1, it's ungracious on your part to say that we have no desire to make a change when you won't lift a finger to help. Take COGDEN's description to your high school or your ward's youth group and tell the kids they have a chance to improve an image on Wikipedia that conservatively has been seen by 40,000 people this month.--John Foxe (talk) 10:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

John Foxe. I think you're misreading between the lines. I was not being critical of anyone when I commented that I sensed "a lack of desire or priority to make the needed change." If anything the statement was meant to reflect the fact that while nobody is saying it, my priorities might not be those of everybody and I may be the one beating the proverbial dead horse. I apologize if I didn't make my point more clear, in essence it is "Let's move on." But if we are discussing courtesy and respect here, I believe it is generally impolite to speak in imperatives (i.e., "Take Cogden's description to your high school...").

As to COgden's wish that the stone(s) were displayed publicly, not me. I think it would just be another media frenzy and something our enemies would mock. If they are there, keep them there, I say.

And 40 000? What does the number of people who view something have to do with its validity? Of those 40 000 viewing the page easily half scrolled over it. Of those that saw it maybe half knew what they were looking at. Of those, maybe half cared about the relevance. Of those, maybe half viewed the image as believable or an accurate depiction...Canadiandy1 (talk) 01:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

I apologize for speaking in imperatives. I should have said, "Wouldn't it be neat if you could enlist some artistically talented high school kids in creating a more artistic representation of Joseph Smith translating the Book of Mormon that remains historically accurate?"

Of course, the number of hits on an article has little to do with how many people actually contemplate the meaning of an image there and nothing to do with the validity of that image. My point was that lots of people see it. For sake of argumentation we'll say of the 40,000 who got to the article this month, 4,000 noticed the drawing. Of those, 400 figured out what it was supposed to represent, 40 learned for the first time how Smith actually performed his translation, and 4 considered the difference between this drawing and the misleading representation of the process promoted by the LDS Church. Four people is a lot. A fuller, more artistic, drawing of the event is likely to capture more attention and educate even more people, which is why I'd also prefer a more sophisticated image.--John Foxe (talk) 10:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I think John makes a good point. Canadiandy wondered above why the fixation with the hat. The fixation stems from the common (and some would say Church fostered) misconception that "Joseph Smith translated the plates" means "Joseph Smith read directly from the plates and understood what he was reading". You should understand there is significance in the manner of translation. If I tell you I can translate Portuguese your immediate assumption would be that I speak Portuguese. But if you later found out that I was simply using Babelfish it would affect your outlook on my abilities. As COgden points out this is the single most notable thing in Joseph Smith's life. To gloss over it would be unacceptable. To misrepresent it would be unforgivable. Padillah (talk) 17:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think many LDS believe that Smith translated through an intellectual capacity. We commonly accept Cowdery's words that the Book of Mormon was translated "...by the gift and power of God". So while I agree there is purpose in identifying that Joseph translated independently (except for the use of a scribe) through a "claimed" spiritual gift, I don't think the hat is at all relevant. And no, I don't expect other contributors to agree with me. But at the same time, I will take issue with the argument that the hat is of some great significance. COgden seems to have the only valid argument, in that it was the receptacle of the seer stones and thus hid the stones from sight. But even this suggests that the hat image is at best problematic. So while some would argue that it is the only way to represent the process, I disagree. It would be better described (as it already is) textually.

Still, I'm not going to belabor this, I thank you all for your input and general civility. I just felt I should voice my concerns over the image selection. My opposition remains, but my respect for the process does too, so I can let this one go until another season.

And thanks for the apology, John. Fully accepted. Again, I suspect any angst began with my mistake in being so vocal in discrediting the image's creation and so is likely deserved. My bad. Canadiandy1 (talk) 00:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

Postscript: Looking back at the LDS image, I see how Padillah might think the intention was that the translation was strictly an intellectual one. If that is the case it is unintentionally misleading. But as this is part of the LDS Gospel Art Kit, (GAK 416, CH) one should recognize its intended audience is attending Church members including children. And I'm sure COgden would agree that you'd be lucky to find 1 in 100 LDS members who believe Joseph translated the plates through a mere intellectual capacity. So when LDS see Joseph looking on the plates, there is a given understanding that (whatever the specifics of the process) he is in the spiritual process of receiving direct revelation. The difference is that the artist here is focusing not on a hat, but on the points of greater importance; 1. That Joseph was the sole translator. 2. A scribe was used during the translation process. 3. That the process was in a closed setting (i.e. not publicly displayed). 4. That the translation was of Plates of Gold. There is nothing misleading about the image when seen from its proper audience and context. But if you put Joseph alone, in a chair, with the plates nowhere in view, with no scribe, and no context for how many, if any are in the room, you'd have a lot of LDS scratching their heads in confusion. Canadiandy1 (talk) 00:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

This topic seems never ending, but it is unique in gospel topics. I look at other pictures that are supposed to depict a religiously important event and I don't see any, as in zero, concern, argument, or disputation. For example, Jesus' baptism. You will not find a single picture on Wikipedia that actually depicts the event as the Bible presents. Nowhere is the deep water, nowhere is Jesus coming up out of the water, etc. The most you will see is a cup of water being poured over his head, which is a total fabrication.

Joseph is said to have found the Urim & Thummim, which was to aid in the translation process, with the golden plates. There is not a single witness that was with Joseph at every occasion that he translated the plates. Not one; yet this is paraded about and discussed in such absolute terms by NO ONE except the individuals on Wikipedia. You expect the world to accept that God gives Joseph an instrument to which he ignores completely? Do you have any discussion of why this choice was made in order to validate your position? I read a lot of positioning, but not a single, reputable historian takes the position you do. Several take positions, but none take it as absolute and sole manner of the process. Why? Because no one was there every time to validate the position. More important, the only person that was there, Joseph, does it discuss it in detail.

Then again, I guess it is okay monopolize the entire discussion to a single POV while yammering about "artistic reality", but then there is that little bit about Jesus' baptism that is completely ignored for hundreds if not thousands of years. I wonder why this event is so special? -^StormRider 01:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The pertinent question is not: was there anyone who was with Smith every single time he translated? The question is instead: did anybody witness him translating in any other way than with a seer stone in a hat? It's not like Smith did the translation in secret and we just don't know how he did it. Anyone who was in the house at the time got to see him translate, including at least one non-believer. Smith himself wasn't ashamed of how he translated, at least not in the 1820s.

Sometimes, historical authenticity is not possible and you have to rely on speculation. But this is not one of those cases. There is an academic consensus as to how he translated at least most if not all of the time, and we have an image that illustrates how he did it, so let's use that image until something comes along that is better.

Also, Storm, there's an answer to why Smith didn't use the Urim & Thummim except possibly very early on in the Book of Lehi. Martin Harris said it was because it was more convenient. Using the single stone, he didn't have to worry about hiding anything from anybody. Even if he did use the spectacles during that early period, however, he still put them in the hat while translating--at least according to Harris who was the only scribe during that period but didn't actually see the spectacles themselves. COGDEN 03:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't mean to try and drag Canadiandy back into this, I respect the fact that he has bowed out. I only wish to clarify a point I, apparently, made pretty badly. I don't think Joseph Smith translated the plates intellectually, that would in fact, as you pointed out, go against the teachings of the Church and the claims of Smith himself. But I had, for years, believed he translated the plates themselves and not simply left them under the bed. It could be argued that the LDS image is intentionally misleading because it places the plates in plain view as if Joseph was using the Urim & Thummim directly on the plates - thus translating the plates. What appears to have happened is he received divine inspiration regarding what was on the plates. And that's a wholly different miracle. This discrepancy, representations so vastly incongruous with the reality of what happened, is what I feel needs pointing out.

@StormRider - the argument you pose assumes the historicity of the Bible. You are asking us to take the Bible at the same face value as Bushman and even Smith himself. I'm sorry but, I can't support that kind of argument. If you can find a history of the Christian Bible or the Bhagavad Gita that comes close to Smiths own words where the Book of Mormon are concerned then you'd have a point. But to take umbrage because we wish to take Smith at his word doesn't seem like a very valid argument. Padillah (talk) 12:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

My sole objective is to not allow this article to speak as if it has the answers. The most we have is contemporary witnesses stating what they saw; we do not have a complete record. We do not have accounts of the full range of Joseph's translation process. Joseph is told to use the U&T; he either did or he did not, but the article does not say this. If he did use the U&T, it is doubtful he used the hat, but that is only my opinion given my understanding of the U&T as explained by Smith.

Second, you have stated that you are looking for "artistic reality". I have stated a position and could cite many more examples, where artistic reality is overlooked completely for religious topics. Somehow Jesus' baptism becomes irrelevant and it is completely accepted; I remind you that the Biblical record is clear that Jesus was baptized by immersion; yet, there is not a single picture that demonstrates this on Wikipedia. Is this misleading? Is it dishonest? Is it falsehood? What is good for the goose should be good for the gander. If all other churches are allowed to have art that approximates their understanding, why is it somehow verboten for LDS? And the record in this situation in reality is not clear whereas the Biblical record is! Do all of you feel that Jesus' baptism is so incongruous with scripture and the reality of what happened that it needs pointing out? If not, what is the difference? What is the motivation? You tell me and then we can have a short discussion, because me thinks something begins to stink in Denmark. -^StormRider 02:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

So you are claiming a belief in the historicity of the Bible? This discussion must start at the understanding of the two documents you are comparing. You are comparing documents that are concrete, datable, and well-established in history (the writing of Bushman and Smith) with a set of documents whose historicity has been widely criticized for thousands of years. I'm not convinced this is the argument you want to make. Interpretations of Christs baptism are open because we don't have a reliable historic record of the act. Argument could also be made that it's relevance is not nearly as significant in the Christian Church as the gift and ability of Smith to translate the plates is to LDS. You must admit, the Church pretty much rests on Smiths gift and ability to translate the plates. This is not about his stand on slavery or polygamy, this is central to the belief in the Church. I do not have the quote in front of me but I remember hearing President Monson say something to the affect that belief in the LDS Church hinges on a persons faith in Smith to have translated the plates, because faith in the Book of Mormon is the cornerstone of the Church. Now if you want to compare this subject to something with the same import then we can compare it with Mary's conception... or Christ's divinity. But to compare something this important to something as minuscule as the manner in which Christ was baptized is belittling and shows a lack of understanding regarding just how important this facet of the Church is. Padillah (talk) 12:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any harm in this image. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 00:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Image description revisited

I still believe the image to be questionable from several perspectives, but since there seems to be no consensus for removing it, I would like to bring up the need to describe it properly. The image has only had a cpation describing the subject of the image itself. That would seem acceptable if it was a photography or something similar. However, since it is an artistic image was made by a non-notable person and an interpretation of a religious-historical event, I believe it should be more clearly labeled, as per WP:NPOV. I do not believe this detracts from it's illustrative value, and it makes it more acceptable to those who are skeptical to its inclusion in the first place. Since none of this information can be considered obvious, I believe it reflects the intentions of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (captions).

I tried to add such a caption at the beginning of this discussion, but it was reverted due to the reference to the Clane Graves image that figured earlier in the discussion here. I've tried to add a slightly amended version that avoids mention of Graves that I believe to be neutral in description without adding excessive or destracting details.

Btw, I would really recommend that John Foxe added a more truthful description to the image metadata at Commons. Currently, it omits information that has been discussed here, and which is generally considered a requirement for image inclusion.

Peter ^Isotalo 13:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I oppose the change because it's POV unless all other images on the page have the same sort of designation.--John Foxe (talk) 14:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Without taking sides on the issue of the drawing, I would be curious what an admin would think about the drawing, and not on the copyright issue that has been previously discussed. There could be an argument that if John asked someone to draw it for him, went through the appropriate rights designation, and then inserted it into this article that it is the visual equivelent of original research. An analogy could be that an editor wants to add his own interpretation or POV to an article, publishes it for the purpose of being able to state it is a 'secondary source', and then inserts it here himself. Note: this is not an attack on John - it would apply to anyone who has a sketch drawn and then places it as an illustration of their own interpretation into an article. Thoughts? Best, A Sniper (talk) 14:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't feel the caption should state the image's origin. If the reader is interested in that, he/she can click on the image and go to the image description page. While I see where Sniper is coming from, I don't think anyone would really remove the image based solely on the "OR" argument. The reason being, it's much harder to get artists to contribute free images than it is to get writers to contribute free text to Wikipedia articles. Beggars can't be choosers, and we all generally agree that it's the one of the best free image we have to illustrate the event.

If you really want a different image, you could try contacting various art schools and asking them to depict the situation and to release their work under a Creative Commons license. Lack of free images is certainly not unique to this article; if you got really serious about it you could talk with the Wikimedia Foundation and get relations set up with art schools to ask students to release their work to the public. I've heard of college writing classes that work on articles, I would imagine it's not vastly different.

Sorry for going a bit off topic, but it is a relevant possible solution to our mild conflict. ...comments? ~BFizz 15:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

John, please avoid auto-reverting before allowing a minimum of discussion. For one thing, please explain how "modern artistic interpretation" is to be considered POV.

I now noticed that for some reason all of my rather brief descriptions of the image origins were removed without discussion.[16] I consider this information interesting and informative, especially from a historical perspective. If there was an argument that this was somehow burdensome or highly distracting, I'd understand the removal. But I don't see how this minimum of information could in any way be that burdensome. If anything, there's absolutely nothing discouraging the origins of images.

Peter ^Isotalo 15:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The term "modern artistic interpretation" is POV because all nineteenth-century images on the page are also artistic interpretations. You can't call this particular one an interpretation without doing the same for the others, and to single this one out is POV.--John Foxe (talk) 15:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

As far as that goes, then EVERY painting, drawing or sketch shown on Wikipedia should be required to have the same type descriptor:

• 'modern artistic interpretation'

• 'antique artistic interpretation'

• 'ancient artistic interpretation'

It would be comforting to know that most WP editors and readers would simply know that every painting, drawing or sketch at WP is / was an 'artistic interpretation' without having to post same. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 17:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Peter, your changes to the picture captions were discussed earlier and you did not participate. I have no problem discussing them again, but this time you need to take part in the discussion. Furthermore, the burden of proof lies with the editor wishing to make a change, so the captions should remain as is until that consensus can be determined.--John Foxe (talk) 18:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

My point above is that the drawing is John's interpretation. He asked someone to draw a picture based on his instructions, then uploaded it to WP, then inserted it in the article. I wanted to encourage folks to discuss it. Could someone with a different POV than John, for example, ask a friend to draw a picture of something else Smith and his cohorts claimed - visits from angels, talking to God, finding plates, etc. - and would we have no problem with those pictures being placed in the article? My own opinion is that going to published sources is one thing (such as period drawings or engravings) - doing your own artwork is another. A Sniper (talk) 19:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

MY point is that the other drawings were someone else's interpretation of the events portrayed; most likely a writer or editor at one of the magazines mentioned. They were probably writing a story about Smith and had an illustrator come up with images for their story. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 19:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing controversial about the image of Joseph Smith translating the Book of Mormon by looking at a seer stone in his hat. Every witness—at least seven—who saw him translate said that was how he did it. Drawing a picture of Smith talking with angels is a much more speculative matter since we have only Smith's testimony. Even so, LDS artists in three centuries have seemingly had no qualms about making such images.--John Foxe (talk) 20:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

John, I can't find any particular motivation as to why the captions can't contain the source info. Please be more specific if you feel there's something I've missed.

There's quite obviously enough controversy about the image to generate discussion. In this case, the image doesn't actually have a named, traceable source and does not come from a notable artist. It all boils down to an image commissioned by an anonymous Wikipedian (who just happens to have a vested interest in the article topic). That's a problem no matter how you look at it. As such, it's hardly unreasonable or unfair to point out that it is in fact a modern artistic interpretation rather than a contemporary one.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

My main objection to including such meta information in the image caption is that it is irrelevant to the subject matter of the article: Joseph Smith. If this were an article about Smith-related art, or about charcoal figure drawings, then it might be important to include that type of information in the caption. If there were a blatant historical inaccuracy in the image, it might be important to note that. For example, if we used the drawing of Smith simply reading the plates in the open in front of Cowdery, we'd want to explain in the caption that this isn't how it actually happened. But such is not the case here. We have to think about what the image is used for: here, the image is used to show how Smith translated the Book of Mormon. Extraneous details like the artist's name, date of creation, source, and medium are not relevant to that purpose, and are better placed in the image's own article page, where readers can click through to read more about the image if they are interested. COGDEN 21:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a very minimalist interpretation about the relevance of image information. All these images are relevant to the history of either Smith or the religion he founded. As such, it's extremely relevant to know who created them or why, for example if they came from the press, Mormons or the church itself. Now, there's obviously no harm in adding this information and I see no policy or guideline that proscribes it. Actively barring this type of info from articel space by claiming it only has art historical interest is pretty far-fetched. I've never seen anyone actively protest these types of edits. Removing relevant and useful information from an article should be motivated with stronger arguments than what seems to amount to WP:IDONTLIKEIT, especially when the information has a direct bearing on neutrality.

Please note that at least one image had dating before I added such information, and for some reason only some captions have been removed. It doesn't strike me as being particularly consistent with the argument about the irrelevance of image metadata.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

There's no Wikipedia rule that demands this information be included nor is there any consensus for adding it; in fact, there's a consensus against it. Let me suggest, Peter, that if you want to pursue this tangent that we request outside mediation.--John Foxe (talk) 12:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time with your logic Foxe. First of all whether there is or isn't a WP rule that something should be added doesn't mean it can't. Wikipedia rules don't say we have to add this picture. This seems to be a unique situation (an alias who is the major article contributor commissions a family member to do a modern interpretation of a historical event at which the artist was not present and is relying on the contributor for details). Also, I would argue about using the term 'consensus.' There may be a majority, but there are substantial contributors who clearly disagree. In essence, both parties are not in agreement.

207.216.52.116 (talk) 16:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

With respect, Peter, during this conversation, no editors have agreed with your decision to include source info in the caption, while three (including myself) have disagreed. Sniper sort of went off on a different, though related, tangent. I generally agree with what Foxe and COgden say here, and reiterate that I feel this "meta" information, while irrelevant to the article, is (or should be) still readily available on the image description page (just a click away).

As for the image itself, the best way to deal with it would be to propose a better free image. Sniper's argument does seem to have some validity. Though these are two attempts to mend the same problem, we really should discuss them separately. Whether or not there even is a "problem" should also be discussed separately. It gets confusing when we hop back and forth between the three topics, and admittedly, that is partially my fault. ...comments? ~BFizz 19:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear, if there truly is an issue where an image might be misconstrued or mistaken for something that it isn't, then I'm not against including a very brief explanation in the caption. But that's not the case with this particular image. Moreover, even if there were such a problem with this image, adding the phrase "modern artistic interpretation" would not solve it. Saying that it is an "artistic interpretation" is just stating the blatantly obvious, and the fact that it is "modern" is irrelevant to the purpose of the caption. COGDEN 20:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not taking a position on changing the caption, and I'm sorry for going off on another path. Again, without meaning to appear negative to what John has done, I find the concept strange that a regular editor, POV or no POV, can merely have a drawing created for him and then place it in the article, and I wonder what would happen if that became common practice. Best, A Sniper (talk) 20:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

For a simplistic comparison, check the articles on any of the sports teams and you will see a depiction of their uniforms, mostly to highlight the colors. Those are drawn in a generic and kind of unrealistic way, like a schematic. Maybe the problem with Foxe's drawing is that it looks too realistic. The sensationalized contemporary illustrations of Smith being shot, and such as that, are too corny to take seriously. The one of Joseph Smith reading the plates is different - it has kind of an "authentic" look to it. Maybe it would be better to draw the depiction of the event to be more like those sports uniforms, to not look realistic, but to merely illustrate the concepts. Truth to tell, I still don't understand what the hat was all about. But a drawing done that looks like it was made by an engineer rather than an artist might resolve all the issues here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I do agree with Bugs on one point - it is a very good drawing. Best, A Sniper (talk) 23:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

When I first saw it, I thought it was contemporary. I do think the LDSers are being a bit hyper-sensitive here. However, given their history, they have become hyper-sensitive in general about misrepresentations of their religious views and what they see as prejudice against their religion. I recall when Mitt Romney held a press conference to defend Mormonism, some of the reaction of conventional right-wing Christians was, "He did a good imitation of a Christian." And some of the crazy rumors about Mormonism (some of which are on this page in other sections) are akin to medieval claims about Jews having horns and stripes. However, wikipedia editors often lock horns (ha!) with religionists of various stripes (ha!), as with the constant battles over our insistence on including illustrations of Muhammad, calling Biblical stories "myths", and so on. The comparison of the various off-the-Mark/Matthew/Luke/John depictions of Jesus doesn't quite hold up, as the average Christian doesn't get concerned about those details so much. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)