Talk:Joseph Smith/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 24

"Second Mohammad" Comment

I thought I'd put this for discussion here before I made any changes. The "second Mohammad" comment was reported by a number of different people. However, none of them were friendly to the church, when exactly he made the comment is fuzzy, and one of them (Orson Hyde) later admitted that unspecified parts of the affidavit were fabricated. I'm not saying this should go away. Once again, I think there's enough evidence that something was said about Mohammad (even if it does appear exaggerated) to merit inclusion in the "Mormonism in Missouri" article, but once again, when no loyal Mormon diary entry or primary source reports this it's a bit much to include it in the short section on Missouri. For example, JS's journal entry at this time is a lot different.

"some excitement was raised in the adjoining Counties, that is Ray & Clay, against us, in consequence of the suden departure of these wicked character[s], of the apostates from this Church, into that vicinity reporting false stories, and statements, but when they [the Missourians] come to hear the other side of the question their feeling[s] were all allayed upon that subject especially." (JS, Journal, [July 1838], cited in Dean C. Jessee, ed., The Papers of Joseph Smith, vol. 2, Journal, 1832-1842 (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1992)

Obviously this was a complicated time, with varying, conflicting accounts. It also conflicts in tone with other accounts that have Joseph Smith emphasizing that "it will not be by the Sword or gun that this kingdom will roll on," (Bushman 521) obviously you can make him look very different depending on which quotes you cherry-pick. While these accounts should be included in the larger article on the subject, including the "second Mohammad" comment when what exactly was said (different versions say different things) and where it was said is questionable, and when all who reported it were unfriendly to the church is putting way too much weight on this one particular quote for a section that is supposed to be a short summary. I don't believe it merits inclusion in the summary of the Joseph Smith article. Kant66 (talk) 05:48, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this detail seems too fuzzy to merit inclusion in an article with a high level of generality such as this one. Bushman (p 352) barely mentions the "second Mohammad" quote, which is immediately preceded by Bushman's (seemingly doubtful) explanation that "Corrill remembered strong talk..." ...comments? ~BFizz 06:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

All it amounts to is the expression of an opinion and not historical fact. Its inclusion would be an attempt to lead readers to a specific POV. It should be deleted. -^StormRider 07:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Smith made the analogy of himself with Muhammad more than once. I don't think that's controversial. It's important at this point in the article to give some flavor of Smith's intense hyperbolic rhetoric in this period, which was interpreted (rightly or wrongly) by Missourians as seditious talk. Obviously, he lived to regret his words, but the tenor of his speeches during this era needs to be reflected in the article, so that the reader understands what followed. COGDEN 12:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

It is still the expression of opinion and can be used for various purposes depended on the tone one is seeking. I assume that you would also support using a plethora of quotes from Joseph Smith that really make him appear prophetic, loving, Christ-like, charitable fellow? Cherry picking comments for a specific tone is what I am rejecting. If we are going for a balanced approach, okay; however, if we are just looking for the controversial or those that reflect the current anti-Mormon "literature" of today, then I reject it on grounds of balance, tone, and POV. -^StormRider 13:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

How about "Meanwhile, militant rhetoric by Smith and other Mormon leaders helped inflame Mormon sentiment"? I think it gets at what COgden is discussing in helping establish the mood of the time. However, Storm Rider also has a point. Joseph Smith also said other things that make him out to be quite tolerant and long-suffering, it's simply a matter of which quotes you choose to place in the more general Joseph Smith article. Whoever placed this quote here conveniently chose the quote that most made him out to be a megalomaniac. Once again, the specific "second Mohammad...spreading their religion by the sword" is arguable and is only reported by disaffected Mormons. There's a big difference between that and there being some kind of comparison made at some point with Mohammad. I don't argue that there wasn't a Mohammad comparison, there probably was, but the words around it make all the difference between the tones behind it. We could write that "this was only reported by disaffected Mormons, other accounts also have Joseph Smith also saying that..." in order to give a more holistic portrayal of the mood at the time, but then it would make that part of the article way too long and make it out to be a character attack/defense piece, which this isn't supposed to be. By using one of the most extreme quotes (and an arguable one at that) at one side of the spectrum it gives an inaccurate representation. Kant66 (talk) 16:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I added my suggestion, but thought I should clarify that the problems with the "second Mohammad" includes the spreading the religion by the sword part of that quote. Kant66 (talk) 19:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

(I started a separate subhead down below.)--John Foxe (talk) 20:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources

@John Foxe There's been a lot of talk about just using "reliable" sources, and several were mentioned. I'm still a bit uncomfortable with this idea, because I wouldn't want to omit something that is helpful and true, just because a source that someone deems "reliable" can't be found. For the purposes of being able to work together here, though, I think it would be helpful (at least to me) if you gave me a short list of sources you consider to be reliable. Bushman, Brodie, Quinn, Vogel, Brooke, and the Journal of Discourses have been mentioned on this page. Are there others? Are there any commonly used sources that you don't think are reliable (aside from anything published by BYU, FARMS, FAIR, or the LDS Church)? Are there any published by BYU et al that you do think are reliable? Answers to these questions would be helpful to beginners like me, though I want to be very careful with lists like this. I think there is a potential danger in having a list of "reliable" sources because we risk automatically rejecting something because it isn't from our list. Still, I think it would be helpful, at least for me. Adjwilley (talk) 14:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

It's typical for newcomers to find the Wikipedia notion of "reliable sources" odd. Frankly, for most writers of serious non-fiction, Wikipedia preference for secondary over primary sources seems counter-intuitive—though as I said above, it all usually works out for the best. For this particular article, the items mentioned in "References" are good resources. But there's certainly no hard-and-fast list. (There are some primary sources mentioned in "References," such as the Book of Mormon; but if you look through the notes, you'll see that the primary sources are usually lagniappe, simply reinforcement for the secondary material.)--John Foxe (talk) 16:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I do think we need to be wary about completely discarding all material published by the LDS church. The Joseph Smith Papers Project, for example, is generally considered a scholarly resource by non-Mormons and Mormons. Additionally, some issues as so religion-specific that the only publications on the matter are by people associated with the church in some capacity. My contributions to the "Heavenly Mother" article, for example, rely heavily on BYU Studies sources, because there really isn't anything else on the subject outside of the Mormon Studies community. So, ultimately, I think it's a case-by-case basis. FARMS, for example, has some of their material being distributed by U. of Chicago Press. Does that make it more legitimate than some of their other stuff. Maybe, maybe not. Kant66 (talk) 01:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Of course, as Wikipedia editors, we have to take what we can get, especially with topics like "Heavenly Mother" or the biographies of living people. But as the "References" of this article demonstrate, there are many fine, peer-reviewed secondary sources about Joseph Smith, so anything about him published by FARMS or the LDS Church can be easily excluded from consideration here. (The University of Chicago Press may have distributed some Islamic translations by Mormon apologist Daniel C. Peterson but, to my knowledge, nothing of his or of FARMS about Mormonism.)--John Foxe (talk) 14:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I do not think that John Foxe's interpretation of the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources guideline is the same as my interpretation. It appears that Foxe opines that anything published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or other Latter Day Saint movement churches should be excluded (unless a third-party reference states the same thing). My understanding of WP:RS is that LDS publications may be used as a reliable source when used as a reference on the position of the church on doctrine, history, etc. For example, under WP:IRS it states that "Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals (emphasis added). The guideline further states that "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

the material is not unduly self-serving;

it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities);

it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;

there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;

the article is not based primarily on such sources."

While I agree that third party publications are preferable, I do not see a prohibition on using sources published by the church or a member of it as long as it is stating the views of the church. In my interpretation of WP:RS sources such as BYU Studies, Deseret Book publications, publications by the church, etc., may all be used even if they are not supported or even addressed by a third party. I am starting out the discussion on this talk page, but it may be more appropriate to be moved to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard if we cannot come to a consensus. Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 15:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

We agree in theory. Nevertheless, in practice, LDS materials have difficulty surmounting the "not unduly self-serving" clause. The Church publishes historical materials for their very apologetic content, otherwise it wouldn't bother and would recommend non-Mormon books that would have greater credibility among its potential audience. So as a practical matter, while we might cite LDS material in support of say, the fact that the Church considers Joseph Smith a prophet, anything of substance about Smith that conflicts with a peer-reviewed secondary source can't be introduced here, except perhaps as a footnote to illustrate how the position of the Church differs from that of peer-reviewed scholarship.--John Foxe (talk) 16:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

To qualify as a reliable source, the material has to be published in a forum in which there is general academic peer review. It doesn't count if the peer review is only among like-minded Mormons. Thus, anything put out by FARMS through Deseret Book or Bookcraft would not count. However, if FARMS publishes through the University of Chicago Press, or similar forums, that would almost certainly be considered a reliable source, as is almost anything published by the academic presses of prestigious universities. As to BYU Studies, it's a little hit and miss. Some of the articles are widely acclaimed, and cited outside of BYU circles, and some are very fringy. BYU Studies does have peer review, but the pool of reviewers may not be a diverse group. Also, in since the early 90s the journal might have been tarnished a little because of BYU's academic freedom issues. BYU Studies articles from the 70s and early 80s are on average more citable than articles from later years. You have to look at them on a case-by-case basis, and see whether they are cited outside of insular Mormon circles. Sometimes, it's obvious that an article would not be favorably reviewed by any scholar other than a Mormon scholar, so that that kind of article is "reliable" only in situations where fringe articles may be cited, such as in articles about fringe subjects.

Publications by the LDS Church itself, without peer review or other indicia of reliability are reliable as to church doctrine, but not reliable as to factual information. That's no different than information published by any corporate organization about itself. There is some information for which the LDS Church is the only source, such as its membership data, which can be citable, perhaps with a footnote. COGDEN 15:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

"Establish our religion by the sword"

I don't see the problem here. Both Brodie and Bushman mention the phrase. Both are reliable sources. Neither suggests that the accuracy of the primary source is in question.--John Foxe (talk) 19:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm definitely not the most knowledgeable on sources here, but perhaps a compromise could be to put the "Establish our religion by the sword" quote in the footnote itself. Adjwilley (talk) 23:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

My problem with the phrase is that it misleadingly suggests that JS is promoting forceful conversion by the sword, when virtually every other statement from this period is clear that he is talking about defending the religion from the state militia. If you want to belabor this I can provide an ample number of alternative quotations from various sources on this point.

Bushman explicitly prefaces this quotation with "Corrill remembered strong talk," specifically adding that caveat. Also, Brodie doesn't provide a citation from this quote, making it difficult to verify its validity, but it appears to be spliced from different accounts, as everything from the third sentence on is taken word-for-word from Thomas Marsh's testimony, which, as previously mentioned, is problematized by its later being repudiated by Orson Hyde, one of the co-signatories. (See Arnold H. Green and Lawrence P. Goldrup, "Joseph Smith, An American Muhammad?: An Essay on the Perils of Historical Analogy," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 6 no. 1, 47.) As previously mentioned, while there are enough testimonies along this line to suggest that some comparison to Mohammad was made, what exactly was said is far too speculative to quote word-for-word.

I'm not trying to whitewash anything here (which should go without saying, but it's a favorite trump card of some here.) I'm perfectly fine with including a quotation that is representative of the rhetoric of the time that is supported by both loyalist and disaffected Mormon accounts, the problem is that the highly charged atmosphere of the time makes this difficult. Anyway, my earlier statement conveys the point.

Between family and getting ready for grad school, I'm going to take a hiatus here, but let me know if things get crazy. It's been an honor working with all of you.Kant66 (talk) 02:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The matter is a significant one because of the way we do our work at Wikipedia. In constructing articles, editors have to accept reliable peer-reviewed secondary sources at face value unless those sources are contradicted by other reliable secondary sources. It's WP:OR to appeal to the primary sources behind the secondary ones, which would lead to "every man his own interpreter" and eventually to "the one who counts the most noses, wins." If Bushman or Green had written, "Corrill, whose testimony about this period is highly suspect,..." that would be a different matter. But they don't. All the best to you in grad school—where Wiki rules definitely don't apply.--John Foxe (talk) 11:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Identification of the LDS group as the Saints is confusing

As a non-US reader who is unfamiliar with the LDS group, I found the frequent references to them as 'the Saints' to be totally confusing. It is unclear if the Saints refers to fictional individuals or actual people; Joseph Smith's high leaders only, a group of actual 'official' Catholic saints, or even something other than people like a sports team. I had to go over the Saints references in context to piece together that the early LDS members all travelled together as a single mobile group(?) and the group referred to themselves as the Saints.

Example solutions could be to change references to 'the Saints' to 'Smith's followers', 'the LDS members' or any similar alternative, or by appending an explanation to the first reference such as 'Joesph Smith's followers, referred to as the Saints' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.70.41.254 (talk) 07:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, any LDS member can be referred to as "Saint", and the LDS collectively as "the Saints". I'm not sure why Catholic definitions of sainthood crossed your mind. I think a bit more discussion of exactly what to do is in order before anyone rushes in and "fixes" it.—Kww(talk) 11:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Mention of Mormons being called "Saints" is noted in the second paragraph of the lede.--John Foxe (talk) 13:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Kww, you seriously don't know why a religious reference would be tied to the largest Christian orthodoxy in the world? Really? That baffles you? Com'on. I'm not saying they are right, I'm just questioning how a reference to Catholic Saints in a religious article would baffle you. Padillah (talk) 16:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I have actually seen the term "Latter-day Saints" confuse Catholics outside the US. In their minds, Saints are supposed to be dead, so if they're never heard the term "Latter-day Saints" before it can be confusing (i.e. "So this is a church that believes in Jesus Christ and they worship a more modern set of Saints. . .Oh, you mean like Padre Pio?"  :-) That said, I think the article is probably fine as is. Adjwilley (talk) 16:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say "baffle". Catholicism and Mormonism are clearly related mythologies, but they are distinct. Anyone that tries to approach life by applying Catholic definitions to things outside of Catholicism is bound to find things a bit confusing.—Kww(talk) 17:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, "the Saints" were often referred to as "the Mormons" during Smith's time. I therefore wouldn't see anything wrong with replacing "Saints" with "Mormons", which is undoubtedly a little less confusing. ...comments? ~BFizz 18:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Same individual who kicked this conversation off here - I'd like to add that 'the Mormons' makes perfect sense to me as an outsider because it encompasses all the individuals. Would it be an acceptable term for the group? Failing that, after reading the discussion, I think the Mormon usage of their current living followers as saints deserves an expanded explanation in the article. John Foxe, you're correct that Saints is listed as one of the names in the second paragraph, but I'd actually not picked up the meaning fully on my first reading because it's between two other meanings and uses as Saints not the Saints. Maybe it should be first and written 'the Saints'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.70.41.254 (talk) 07:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Better yet, first written as "the Latter-Day Saints". BTW, when you leave a note on the talk page like this, it would help if you put four tildes (~) after it so the server will sign it and date it for you. There's a bot that comes through and does it but it's not perfect and it can miss sometimes. Better yet, if your contributions are going to continue like you have here, I'd love to have you as a contributor. Sign up and establish a portfolio. Padillah (talk) 11:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Reaching consensus by cutting

• There's no reason to drop the mention of Smith's family.
• The term "Christian revivalist atmosphere" is meaningless (also stylistically ugly). Google it and you'll find the references pointing back to this article. "Religious enthusiasm" is the proper term.
• Both COgden and I have explained why the attempt to blame Joseph's treasure hunting on his family's financial problems is misleading. As COgden said, "Smith started practicing magic during a period (c. 1820-22) when the Smith family was doing pretty well." That sentence certainly has no consensus and should be deleted until our objections can be met.

But I think if we cut rather than add, we might reach consensus yet without moving up to the next level of dispute resolution. What do you think?--John Foxe (talk) 13:33, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that cutting is probably not the best way. If we're arguing about undue weight, then cutting information out will result in more weight on whatever we leave in. If we cut out Christian revivalism and leave treasure hunting, that would be undue emphasis on the treasure/magic. Adjwilley (talk) 23:09, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe Joseph was largely indifferent to religion in his youth and that the influence of the Second Great Awakening on him was minimal. On the other hand, practicing folk magic was what he was about.

My experience at other articles has been that when two parties reach an impasse, it's often possible to reach a compromise by cutting. (Cutting usually makes for better grammar and syntax as well.) Contrariwise, when editors start trying to balance articles by adding material, trouble's usually brewing.--John Foxe (talk) 17:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

While cutting is sometimes a good idea, we really do need to say something about Smith's life before the Book of Mormon. Mentioning Emma by name in the lede would also be a good idea. ...comments? ~BFizz 03:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Yikes. And possibly start a squabble over whether to say anything about the plural wives? I rest my case.--John Foxe (talk) 13:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Seer link

In this reversion John Foxe took out the "and translations" bit, which I agree with, but also reverted the link on the word "seer" in the Impact section. I don't understand Foxe's rationale here, which he gave in the edit summary: "phony Easter egg link". That it's an Easter egg link is true for both the IP editor's and Foxe's versions, and necessary due to the specialized meaning of the word "seer" in LDS culture and history. Phony implies that it's misleading the reader. But the context of the link is about why LDS adherents value Joseph Smith:

Indeed, because of his perceived role in restoring the true faith prior to the Millennium, and because he was the "choice seer" who would bring the lost Israelites to their salvation, modern Mormons regard Smith as second in importance only to Jesus.

The meaning of "seer" in this context seems better reflected by the Prophet, seer, and revelator article than the Seer stone (Latter Day Saints) article. Foxe's version is the misleading one. alanyst 18:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if there is support in the sources for that. Smith's circa 1829 Book of Mormon usage of the word "seer" is more consistent with the magical usage. In the Book of Mormon, a seer is one with the power to see visions in stones. See Mosiah 8. The modern Mormon idea of a stoneless "seer" is a later idea that antedates Joseph Smith, or at least antedates the Book of Mormon. There might be a clarity problem in using the term "seer" at all in the impact section, because it confuses these two conceptions of seer. To modern Mormons, there is essentially no difference between the words "seer" and "prophet". COGDEN 22:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Copy+pasting my edit summary: actually, let's get rid of the link here, since the phrase "choice seer" refers to a specific role, and not a generic "seer". ...comments? ~BFizz 22:17, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Certainly the best solution. Sorry I didn't think of it myself.--John Foxe (talk) 22:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment

Should the lede include the statement “Smith himself claimed the ability to find buried treasure through supernatural means”? John Foxe (talk) 20:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC) Question edited for more neutral language by alanyst 20:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Some of the discussion is here.--John Foxe (talk) 20:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Here are the sentences (with citations), dismissed as WP:UNDUE by a consensus of Mormons, that I'd like to substitute for two sentences currently in the lede:

Smith was reared in western New York during a period of religious enthusiasm by a family that both professed Christian beliefs and practiced folk magic. <ref>{{Harvtxt|Bushman|2005|pp=49-51}}: “In addition to rod and stone divining, the Smiths probably believed in the rudimentary astrology found in the ubiquitous almanacs. Magical parchments handed down in the Hyrum Smith family may have originally belonged Joseph Sr….Magic and religion melded in Smith family culture.” </ref> Smith himself claimed the ability to find buried treasure through supernatural means. <ref>{{Harvtxt|Bushman|2005|pp=52}} Brought to trial in 1826 as a disorderly person, the twenty-year-old Smith said that for three years he had searched for “hidden treasures in the bowels of the earth” with a seer stone, although he claimed he had been pressured by others to do so.</ref>

--John Foxe (talk) 21:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The "professed Christian beliefs and practiced folk magic" wording is a separate issue that has nothing to do with the treasure-seeking question. Please do not commingle it with this RFC. alanyst 21:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

As the lede should be a summary of the article text, only in rare cases would explanatory footnotes be justified. (The explanation is the article text itself, along with the references therein.) Having footnotes in your proposed text is another distraction from the key issue presented in the RFC, which is whether Smith's treasure seeking activities in his youth ought to be mentioned in the lede. alanyst 21:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I've already said my bit in the space above. Basically, we contend that this isn't agenda-pushing, but an attempt at following the guidelines for lead. Consult the discussion above for more details.Kant66 (talk) 00:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Just a note: this rfc still lacks new participants; only those who have already been involved in the discussion have spoke up so far. ...comments? ~BFizz 06:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

My grandmother was often sought out by others who were looking to drill a well. She was know to be able to switch a well with fruitful results. It would be an injustice to limit her life to this ability and this small part of her life. More importantly, it would be a complete distortion of facts to call her a believer or practitioner of folk magic. She was a devout Christian who also was able to switch a well. It seems to me that pushing this single agenda or desire to brand Smith as a practitioner of folk magic is highly POV and only serves a negative agenda. -176.44.67.249 (talk) 09:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

1. For a man who did so much in his lifetime, it seems silly to put this kind of emphasis on folk magic and diving. Finding treasure was not Joseph Smith's forte - that's not what he spent his life doing, and it's not what history remembers him for. He founded a very successful religion, he wrote a book that millions of people consider to be scripture, he revolutionized religious thought, he founded a city, and the list goes on. Why the emphasis on folk magic?

2. This is not me saying that we shouldn't say anything negative about Smith in the lead. I'd argue the same way about positive details. For example: take the story about young Joseph refusing to drink alcohol at a young age, when the doctor was operating on his leg. This story is at least as important as the folk magic, and it foreshadows the Word of Wisdom, but it belongs in the section on his early life - not the lead. I would take the same stance on putting the story of George Washington cutting down the cherry tree his lead, or the story of honest Abe Lincoln returning forgotten change to his customers.

3. It's impossible to understand Joseph Smith without understanding the world that he lived in. People back then were superstitious - afraid of the dark. Folk magic and diving were commonplace. But without the background, to us living in the 21st century, these practices seem strange at best, at worst, outright evil. An extreme example would be putting a line in an article on Jesus that reads "Jesus allegedly performed numerous exorcisms, brought people back from the dead, and came back from the dead himself." The lack of context completely distorts what was actually going on. Put the details in the body of the article where more space can be devoted to providing a complete picture. (please note: I'm not trying to compare Joseph Smith to Jesus, Washington, or Lincoln here)

In conclusion, this sentence has no place in the lead of the article. It seems to be a blatant attempt to discredit Smith, and readers will see through that. It sets the tone for a negatively slanted article, and that's not what we're working for on Wikipedia.

Adjwilley (talk) 21:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to clarify what this thread was about. The sentence as it stands mentions both folk magic and early Christian beliefs in order to give context to his early life, which I thought we had decided fits within the lead guidelines. Specifically, what this thread is about is whether to include JF's additional sentence above and beyond the mention it already has ("He was influenced by both the Christian revivalist atmosphere and the folk magic practices of the time,"). Kant66 (talk) 19:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

For a controversial figure such as Joseph Smith, there are going to be favorable, unfavorable (and presumably) relatively objective treatments of his life. The question should not be whether Wikipedia editors think the "folk magic" is relevant but whether the reliable sources think it is relevant. We should consult the most reputable sources to see how this topic is treated. If it tends to be brought up and discussed with some frequency (taking into account the fact that favorable accounts of his life are less likely to make much of it), then it should be mentioned in this article, possibly even in the lead. We should not be worried about this being a "blatant attempt to discredit Smith". It is not Wikipedia's job to justify or discredit Smith. It is Wikipedia's job to document what reliable sources have said about Smith, regardless of whether it is to his credit or discredit. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Pseudo-Richard, all reliable sources note the Smith family's magical practices. D. Michael Quinn wrote a whole book about it. I've never heard an objection from a non-Mormon about introducing into the lede information about Smith's three years of professional treasure hunting through supernatural means before he said he saw an angel. Not surprisingly, some Mormons are sensitive about this issue because it reflects so negatively on the character and credibility of Smith (although few will be so open about the reason for their opposition as Adjwilley). The solution is simply the involvement of more non-Mormon Wikipedians. And I think that involvement will occur as the discussion moves higher in the hierarchy of dispute resolution.--John Foxe (talk) 14:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Let's be clear here: The lede already mentions folk magic and this has the general support of the editors here. What John Foxe is proposing is to add another sentence to the lede that explicitly mentions Joseph Smith's treasure seeking endeavors during his late adolescence, prior to the work on the Book of Mormon. Foxe's idea is regarded as undue weight for the lede by the other editors here, but Foxe is dissatisfied with this outcome and seeks outside input to overrule the local consensus. That's what this RFC is about. It is not about the question of whether folk magic should be mentioned. alanyst 14:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for the confusion my comments caused. My initial understanding was that the sentence about Smith's family being "influenced by the Christian revivalist atmosphere and the folk magic practices of the time" was going to be replaced by the above sentences. The exclusion of "of the time" bugged me and led to my 3rd point on historical context. My first two points were against putting the heavier emphasis on folk magic and divining. I will admit I was confused about the intent - thank you for the clarification Alanyst. The "blatant attempt to discredit Smith" was not part of my argument, and I'm sorry I said it. My arguments against the statement were laid out in points 1, 2, and 3, and the "conclusion" didn't draw from the arguments as it should have. I said that because discrediting Smith seems to be John Foxe's primary motive. That is an entirely separate issue, and probably a bad assumption, and I'm sorry for bringing it up here. On an unrelated note, I have a question for John Foxe. . . are you wanting the two citations to go in the lead as well, or are they only there for the purposes of this discussion? Adjwilley (talk) 15:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it's not clear at all. So I'd like to know: is this RfC to mention folk magic in the lead at all or to mention it twice?

If it's to mention it twice I say "No". This is only the lead and it's not like it played an over-prominent role in his early life. It was simply the way people practiced daily life.

If it's to mention it at all, I say "Yes". Smith was 22 when he received his vision and 39 when he died. So his religious life comprised almost half his life. But we can't simply not mention over half a persons life and call the article balanced. User:Adjwilley, you equate this incident with Washington's tree or Lincolns "spare change" stories. I don't think those are valid corollaries. Neither of those incidents shaped the forefathers lives, they were examples of how their lives were shaped. Also, those incidents were (and still are) significant legendary examples of the character of those men. We are talking about neither in this case. We are talking about social pressure that affected the outlook of this person. You mention Lincoln, well the Lincoln article has (in the lead) mentions of his self-education, his law practice, his term as legislator, and his term as Representative. As well as his two failed attempts at winning a senate seat. None of those are as significant as the Emancipation Proclamation or many other works Lincoln championed, but they are indicators of his life and history. They are valid points that demonstrate he had a life before his entry into the Presidency. Smith had a life before he found the BoM, just because Mormons are uncomfortable with it doesn't make it insignificant. There should be some amount of mention regarding what his life was like. Especially leading up to this historic revelation. A sentence, in passing, regarding the lifestyle and sociology he was brought up in should not be out of line. And, in as much as we are being truthfull with what that lifestyle and social mores were, we should not shy away from what did, in fact, happen. Padillah (talk) 16:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

alanyst says that the lede mentions folk magic. It doesn't. Take a look.

Adjwilley, I've been trying to get some Mormon to say that Smith's practice of magic reflects negatively on his character and credibility, and you've come closest. (I appreciate your not trying to claim that mention of Smith treasure digging should be excluded from the lede because of WP:UNDUE.)

Watching the changes from IPs in the last few days, I realized that to make my sentences finally stick if they're approved at a higher level of dispute resolution, they'll need footnote support so that any changes can quickly be reverted as "removal of cited material." (Bushman's a great reference because he's a Mormon patriarch).

My goal is simply to have Smith actions prior to his discovery of the golden plates presented to the reader and let the reader make the decision about whether these occult practices reflect on Smith's credibility as a prophet. Many of the Mormons here want to prevent readers from making that sort of decision.--John Foxe (talk) 17:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Ach, you're right, the folk magic bit was taken out somewhere along the way without my noticing. My apologies; I thought it was still there. I'll fix that, since there was consensus for having both the folk magic and Christian revivalism mentioned. alanyst 17:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Allow me to rehash the main question in the RfC:

Current consensus is

1) to use this sentence or something quite similar:

He was influenced by both the Christian revivalist atmosphere and the folk magic practices of the time.

2) to exclude specific mention of Smith's "treasure seeking", per WP:UNDUE.

John Foxe calls into question the neutrality of this consensus, claiming it is influenced by pro-Mormon thought. He wishes to make two changes.

1) add "treasure seeking" explicitly in the lede

2) say that the Smith's "professed Christianity" but "practiced folk magic"

Various people in the discussion believe that Foxe is pushing an anti-Mormon agenda by advocating these changes, while he believes others are pushing a pro-Mormon agenda by denying them. I believe most of us agree that "folk magic", at least, should be mentioned (with the understanding that Smith's "treasure seeking" was one example of said "folk magic"). ...comments? ~BFizz 18:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Well stated, though I would emphasize that these are strictly changes to the lede we're arguing about. Nobody is suggesting, for instance, that treasure seeking should be omitted from the article body. Informed comments from editors who have neither a pro- nor anti-Mormon POV would be most welcome. alanyst 18:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I hesitate to add another comment here - I've probably said too much already. Just to be clear, though, let me say four things.

1) In my mind, whether or not the sentences discredit Smith was never part of the argument. (I was trying to say that in point #2 above.)

2) I agree with Padillah. 1st sentence yes, 2nd sentence no. (You're probably right about my corollaries too)

3) The Folk magic practices sentence should include "of the time" as it does now.

4) I would be against the citations in the lead. I think it's overkill.

Adjwilley (talk) 19:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not thrilled the idea of taking either side of this discussion. The contrast between "professed" being used in respect to Christianity and "practiced" in respect to folk magic does seem to have the intent of marginalizing Smith's Christianity in favor of painting him as a folk magician. I don't see that as necessary. However, saying he was only "influenced" by Christianity and folk magic seems somewhat tepid and understated. So far as I can tell, he identified himself as a Christian, and identified some of his practices as magical. I would amplify both statements, and not try to present it as an either/or choice. There's nothing better or worse about being Christian than being a folk magician, and the range of practices that come under the umbrella of "Christian" don't exclude all those that come under the umbrella of "magic". As a complete outsider to both ranges of belief, I have a hard time distinguishing transubstantiation from magic, for example, and would suspect anyone that can of having a bit of bias.

Similarly, I don't see removing "treasure hunting" from the lead as being warranted. It certainly is a notable part of Smith's early activities, and a worthwhile part of the lead.

For those that like to track "bias", I'm an atheist, and descended from Smith's patriarchal line (either his grandfather or great-grandfather, I forget which).—Kww(talk) 18:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Although ideally I'd like to have the lede mention the magical practices of Smith's family, I'd settle for the addition of a clear sentence about Smith claiming the ability to find buried treasure through supernatural means before meeting an angel—along with the associated citation to Bushman so that our IP friends can't so easily remove it every other day. (Bushman (2005, pp. 52) Brought to trial in 1826 as a disorderly person, the twenty-year-old Smith said that for three years he had searched for “hidden treasures in the bowels of the earth” with a seer stone, although he claimed he had been pressured by others to do so.)

For what it's worth, I also consider transubstantiation magic.--John Foxe (talk) 19:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• (EC)Thank you BFizz. So we're looking at the sentence "Smith himself claimed the ability to find buried treasure through supernatural means" (sans decoration, apologies to John Foxe). That being the case I don't see a problem with adding the second sentence (despite the misunderstandings of my position by Adjwilley). Again, this is something that he did. We are supposed to be encapsulating his life and to ignore the first 22 years in favor of the last 19 is more than a bit disingenuous. Without these two statements there is nothing in the lead regarding the first half of this man's life. THAT'S WP:UNDUE. To honestly expect the reader to believe that he sprang, fully formed and functioning, at the age of 21 is untenable. And, for those arguing that mention in the lead is WP:UNDUE remember, it's the lead. It's not the only part it's a condensation of the article, not a replacement. If someone sees that and disagrees with it they can look in the article body and see what we were referring to. It is not a lie and it is not a gross misrepresentation. Padillah (talk) 19:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

  Sources only mention Smith engaging in treasure seeking for a few years. Certainly he did have a childhood but he is hardly notable for that. ...comments? ~BFizz 21:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

By his own admission Smith was hunting gold treasure by supernatural means for at least three years before he found, by supernatural means, the gold plates from which he translated the Book of Mormon. It's ludicrous that Mormons can argue that including such information right up front in the lede is WP:UNDUE. Let the reader of the article know about it right from the get-go. There should be no attempt to hide information in the interest of burnishing the image of Joseph Smith.--John Foxe (talk) 22:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The premise of including specific mention of including specific mention in the lede about Smith's treasure hunting is that it is an important or significant fact. But I have yet to see even a Brodie quote that concludes that his treasure hunting was a significant part of his life, or that it was connected to the golden plates in a significant way. ...comments? ~BFizz 22:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Simple chronology. Brodie wrote before publication of D. Michael Quinn's mammoth Early Mormonism and the Magic World View (1998).--John Foxe (talk) 22:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't follow your reasoning. Brodie had most of the evidence before her just as Quinn did. Yet, despite being one of Smith's harshest critics, she failed to claim that treasure hunting was a significant influence over Smith's later religious endeavors? ...comments? ~BFizz 01:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

It may come as a surprise, but Brodie didn't always get the whole story or always get it right. That's one reason why Bushman's book is twice as long as hers—even though he can't touch her in literary style. (I'm envious that she could write like that in her late 20s.) Nevertheless, here's a nice quotation from No Man Knows My History:

The evidence, however, leaves no doubt that, whatever Joseph's inner feelings, his reputation before he organized his church was not that of an adolescent mystic brooding over visions, but of a likable ne'er-do-well who was notorious for tall tales and necromantic arts and who spent his leisure leading a band of idlers in digging for buried treasure. (16)

Quinn has a better understanding of the connection between Smith's professional delvings into the occult and the beginnings of Mormonism—this from the back blurb of Early Mormonism and the Magic World View:

During his apprenticeship to become a prophet (1820-30), Joseph Smith, Jr., learned from village mentors how to use a divining rod; a seer stone; a hat to shield his eyes in order to see hidden treasures; and amulets, incantations, and rituals to summon spirits.

Of course, Quinn is as much a WP:RS as Brodie.--John Foxe (talk) 01:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

BFizz, again I must point to at least one "Good Article" Abraham Lincoln that has (in the lead) mentions of his self-education, his law practice, his term as legislator, and his term as Representative. None of which would be considered "notable", especially in light of the rest of his accomplishments. So it's not unheard of to include details that, while not notable, present a clearer picture of the subject. If someone comes here to find out "who this Joseph Smith guy" was they will be met by a lead that describes a young man that found the BoM and then created a church, no questions asked. I don't think that's quite balanced. Padillah (talk) 12:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources agree that Joseph Smith came from a family that practiced folk magic for profit and that Smith himself claimed the ability to find golden treasure by occult means years before he found the golden plates from which he translated the Book of Mormon. This information reflects negatively on Smith's character and credibility as a prophet and therefore should not be hidden from readers of the lede—though it will undoubtedly smack some of them like a cold fish in the face.--John Foxe (talk) 14:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

@John Foxe I have a problem with the wording "Smith himself claimed the ability to find buried treasure through supernatural means." I read your source on that, and nowhere does it say that Smith claimed that ability. It says that Smith never denied the power to find treasure, but saying he claimed the ability might be giving the wrong impression. In addition, the source says,

"Treasure-seeking, he said, was not his idea. 'He did not solicit business of this kind, and had always rather declined having anything to do with this business.' He had been under pressure from neighbors, from the enthusiastic and well-off Stowell, and from his own father. They kept after him even though the hunts invariably failed."

The family had just lost their farm, and Joseph's brother Alvin had died, which "sharply reduced the family's earning power." Joseph and Hyrum were looking for whatever jobs they could find. "In 1825, when the family needed money, Joseph Jr. agreed to help Stowell find the Spanish gold, but with misgivings." This all paints a different picture than the statement "Smith himself claimed the ability to find buried treasure through supernatural means."

Perhaps you read the statement in another source. Perhaps in your zeal for smacking people in in the face with cold fish, you were reading between the lines. Either way, I would recommend finding a different source or revising the wording. Adjwilley (talk) 15:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

For clarification, I'm not contesting the use of the seer stone. That is pretty well-established. I'm just saying the source you listed doesn't seem to support that Joseph ever claimed the ability to find buried treasure. Adjwilley (talk) 16:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I can perfectly understand the need to mention "folk magic" in the lede. I do not advocate its exclusion. What I can't understand is why "treasure seeking", among the other folk magic the Smiths practiced (e.g. from the Quinn quote: the divining rod, amulets, incantations), deserves this special attention. Well, I can understand that Foxe finds this detail to be scandalous, so he wants it in the lede. If we absolutely must include "treasure seeking" in the lede, then I agree with Adjwilley that the wording must be revised. ...comments? ~BFizz 16:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The WP:UNDUE argument is relevant here. This is the lede, a summary of the article. We already have a sentence about Smith's background of Christian revivalism and folk magic. Treasure seeking is one detail of Smith's background, but there are many other details: his reaction to the revivalism, his search for authoritative Christianity, his family dynamics, his ordinary farm labor, and so forth. To place just one of these details in the lede to the exclusion of the others is to give it far more prominence and importance. This is justifiable if the reliable sources collectively dwell on that to the exclusion of the other details, but I don't think that's the case here. They certainly address the topic, but place it in context with the other details of Smith's early years. It would be improper POV pushing to insist that Smith's study of the Bible or his digging of wells in his early years get exclusive mention in the lede, particularly if the rationale given were that these details positively reflected on Smith's credibility or character. I am mystified why the symmetrical argument that John Foxe has put forth is not regarded by neutral editors as an equal affront to Wikipedia values. alanyst 16:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Knowing Smith hunted treasure by supernatural means before he came across the angel and the Book of Mormon tells us much about Smith's character and the credibility of his later testimony. Mormons hate the notion that such negative information would be provided to readers early in the lede. That's the more reason why it should be. And providing it is not an "affront to Wikipedia values" because all reliable sources agree about it. So, here's a case in which Mormons, in effective control of an article about the founder of their religion and unable to cite any reliable sources to bolster their POV, hope to hide valuable information from the casual reader by arguing that it's WP:UNDUE.

When we get the sentence in the lede, it will need a footnote so that the sentence about Smith's practice of the occult can't be easily removed. I cited Bushman above because he's an LDS member in good standing. There's no problem getting more radioactive quotations from Quinn.

As to whether Smith claimed the ability to find treasure, here's his own testimony (written in the third person) from the 1826 trial:

That he had a certain stone which he had occasionally look at to determine where hidden treasures in the bowels of the earth were; that he professed to tell in this manner where gold mines were at a distance under ground, and had looked for Mr. Stowel several times, and had informed him where he could find these treasures, and Mr. Stowel had been engaged in digging for them. That at Palmyra he pretended to tell by looking at this stone where coined money was buried in Pennsylvania and while at Palmyra had frequently ascertained in that way where lost property was of various kinds.

--John Foxe (talk) 18:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

What, precisely, are the negative implications that Smith's treasure hunting makes about his character and credibility, and which reliable sources make these arguments? Specific citations, please. alanyst 18:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you believe Smith's treasure hunting before finding the golden plates has negative implications or that it has none?--John Foxe (talk) 18:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm asking a question about your argument. You have repeatedly asserted that Smith's character and credibility are undermined by his treasure seeking. I'm asking for specifics: what precisely are these negative implications, and what reliable sources make these arguments about his character and/or credibility? alanyst 18:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

First tell me whether or not you believe Smith's prior hunting for treasure by supernatural means reflects negatively on his character and credibility as a prophet. If you believe there are negative implications, then any evidence I'd produce would be superfluous. We'd be in agreement. If, however, you answer that there are no negative implications of Smith's prior engagement with the occult, then there's little reason for you to oppose adding a single sentence to the lede mentioning it. Such a sentence would have no affect on the reader's perception of Joseph Smith, it would end a protracted discussion, and it would satisfy the only non-Mormon editor at this article.--John Foxe (talk) 19:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I will answer your question though you have not given me the courtesy of an answer yourself. How it reflects on Smith's character and credibility is dependent on the reader's interpretation and background, the word choice, and the context in which such information appears. Thus both of your alternatives are possible, as well as a third possibility that some readers will regard it positively, and a fourth that some readers will wonder why such a detail is being highlighted in the lede, and whose POV is being pushed thereby. But all these alternatives are irrelevant, because the question is not "what conclusions will the reader reach?" but "what is the policy or source basis for including this detail in the lede to the exclusion of other details?" alanyst 21:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

If the addition of a statement about Joseph Smith's early practice of the occult has no intrinsic POV and can be interpreted in different ways by different readers, then you should have no objection to its inclusion. All reliable sources agree that Smith was gold digging before his encounter with the angel; he admitted it himself. To include the sentence would humor me, end a long contentious discussion, and allow the reader decide for himself whether the information is relevant.--John Foxe (talk) 23:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

In some alternate universe, Bizarro-Foxe is actually engaging in good faith, answering my question and addressing my point about WP:UNDUE. And Bizarro-Alanyst is getting enough sleep which helps him not be grumpy. alanyst 07:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Get some rest, alanyst. You've set yourself to defending the hiding of relevant information from readers. Only Mormons agree with your position. That's enough to make anyone grumpy.--John Foxe (talk) 14:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break

@alanyst: to feign ignorance of the standard Christian view that occult and "magic" are evil is not a good approach. To provide witnesses to the fact that a well-known church head willingly practiced magic is very damaging to that persons character in the context of a Christian belief system. I agree with John Foxe's ends, but not his means. I don't think this needs to be in the lead simply because it will annoy Mormons. I believe it needs to be in the lead for precisely the same reason others believe it needs to be kept out - Undue weight. Leaving this out of the lead will give those casual readers that skim the lead a false sense of the man. This was more than just some hobby he tried one Saturday, but didn't inhale. This was something he pursued and used as a means to earn a living for a substantial amount of time. It needs to be noted in any balanced summary of the man's life. Padillah (talk) 20:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

What's not a good approach is making editorial decisions based on what readers of a Christian persuasion will think of the article's subject. We appear to agree that Foxe's rationale (such as it is) is not supportable by policy. Your WP:UNDUE argument is curious to me, because there are many other details of Smith's early life that could also be mentioned, and that had significant influence on his later life. Some might be thought of as positively reflecting on Smith's character and credibility by certain segments of the readership, and some might be regarded as negative or neutral. WP:UNDUE requires that we place no particular detail, fact, or narrative in disproportionate prominence to how the reliable sources regard it. In the lede, where every sentence counts and every detail is magnified in importance by such prominent mention, it can be very easy to undermine neutrality by promoting certain details (like treasure seeking and folk magic) and downplaying others (like Bible study and manual labor). Using the lede to highlight Smith's treasure seeking but not his more conventional activities will also give the casual reader a false sense of the man, will it not? alanyst 21:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Padillah. Furthermore, Smith didn't do much Bible study or manual labor—those activities are mostly self-reported at a later date. (His contemporaries thought him irreligious and lazy.) We have far more sources for Smith's participation in the occult, and his magic world view contributed more to creation of Mormonism than any other feature of his youth.--John Foxe (talk) 23:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I will rebut your second and last sentences with a detailed look at the authoritative biography of Joseph Smith and how it treats this time period. This will be a bit long.

Chapter 2 of Rough Stone Rolling is devoted to Smith's formative years between his childhood and his work on the Book of Mormon. Bushman divides it into sub-headings: Settlement, Revelations, Moroni, Money, Treasure, Marriage, and Family Religion.

• In "Settlement" he provides copious evidence of the Smiths' efforts to survive financially through conventional manual labor: shopkeeping, hiring out for haying and harvesting and odd jobs, and clearing their own land (a "herculean achievement" of clearing thirty acres the first year on their property).
• "Revelations" documents Joseph Smith's early religious leanings: largely independent of institutional Christianity (though with some inclination toward Methodism) and with little public religious activity, yet still concerned with Christian theological questions of sin, salvation, and religious authority. The section also discusses the First Vision narratives.
• "Moroni" briefly mentions the Smiths' continued efforts to clear land (60 acres) while holding school and studying the Bible at home. It also documents some early persecution of the family by their Palmyra neighbors, before going into considerable detail about the encounters with Moroni.
• "Money" tells of Alvin's death and the ensuing financial troubles, culminating in the loss of their farm, which forced Joseph to find ways to help provide for both his family and his future.
• "Treasure" details the treasure seeking activities of the Smiths and their contemporaries. It acknowledges that both Joseph Sr. and Joseph Jr. participated (the former more enthusiastically than the latter), and notes that "money-digging was epidemic in upstate New York." Bushman says that "magic and religion melded in Smith family culture." He also says that "Joseph Jr. never repudiated the stones or denied their power to find treasure. Remnants of the magical culture stayed with him to the end. But after 1823, he began to orient himself away from treasure and toward translation." Bushman documents Joseph Jr.'s testimony in the disorderly persons trial: "'He did not solicit business of this kind, and had always rather declined having anything to do with this business.' He had been under pressure from neighbors, from...Stowell, and from his own father."
• "Marriage", a short section, tells of Joseph's introduction to Emma Hale, their courtship and elopement, Isaac Hale's opposition to their union based on Joseph's treasure seeking, and Joseph's promise to his father-in-law to cease the practice. It says that "Joseph had long been trying to free himself from the treasure-seekers" who "'urged him, day after day, to resume his old practice.'"
• "Family Religion" summarizes the chapter for a segue into the next, which details the Book of Mormon work. Bushman identifies several key influences from this time:
  • Magic and treasure seeking: "In 1827....Magic had served its purpose in his life. In a sense, it was a preparatory gospel....[it] may have made it easier for his father to believe his son's fabulous story about an angel and gold plates....The danger of treating the plates as treasure was underscored time after time."
  • Religious independence: "Was there anything uniquely powerful in Smith family dynamics to produce a prophet son?...The Smiths' confusion about religion made Joseph an independent seeker....The two imparted faith to their children but no clear direction or institutional support."
  • Joseph Sr.'s financial failures: "If there was any childhood dynamic at work in Joseph Jr.'s life, it was the desire to redeem his flawed, loving father, but was this enough to make him a prophet?"
  • Personal and family hardship: "They did suffer traumas both personal and social: typhoid fever infections, poverty, humiliation about their log cabin, alienation from the respectable village population, religious confusion....Perhaps the Smiths' afflictions prepared Joseph for leadership. He had endured the agonies of thousands in his generation and could speak to their sorrows."

Now, it's clear from the above: treasure seeking was a significant part of Smith's early life, and yet was only one of several significant influences. Is it not quintessential WP:UNDUE to take one of several similarly weighted concepts from the reliable sources and promote it to the exclusion of the others, particularly in an effort to lead the reader to conclusions about Smith's credibility? alanyst 07:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

A few points:

1) This discussion is about the addition of treasure digging to the lead - not magic. Magic is already in the lead and the body, and everybody here agrees that it should stay that way. Rehashing magic in the lead would be UNDUE.

2) If the argument is about treasure digging, it was like a summer job - something he didn't want to do, but had to for reasons mentioned above (pressure from father, Stowell, losing the farm, needed money). "Money-digging was epidemic in upstate New York." (Bushman 79) It's like trying to discredit a Democrat for working at Wal-Mart in high school. If, however, the argument is about using magic while treasure digging, well, magic is already mentioned in the lead so we can stop wasting our time arguing about that (see point 1).

3) Padillah makes a good point, only his/her (sorry) assumption that magic is evil in the Christian view is only half correct. In Joseph Smith's time, both magic and treasure digging were acceptable in Christianity. As Bushman puts it, "Ordinary people apparently had no difficulty blending Christianity with magic. Willard Chase, the most vigorous of the Manchester treasure-seekers, was a Methodist class leader at the time he knew the Smiths, and in his obituary was described as a minister. . . At the time he employed Joseph to use his stone to find Spanish bullion, Josiah Stowell was an upright Presbyterian and an honored man in his community. . . Christian belief in angels and devils blended with belief in guardian spirits and magical powers." (page 50) Of course, in our day, magic is viewed as bad within Christianity. Unless you call it the Power of God. Then it's good. Actually, that's one of the reasons Joseph didn't like the treasure digging. He felt the ability to find things was a gift from God, and using it in search of "filthy lucre" was bad. Of course, we can't give this kind of historical context in the lead, so we just say he was involved in the folk magic practices of the time, and don't put any more undue stress on it until the body of the article (see point 1).

4) I've read and re-read Foxe's many arguments and I still don't understand his logic.

5) Fox still hasn't given us a revised wording or citation, so until that happens, we don't even know what we're arguing about.

6) We've been arguing in circles for a few days now, and haven't really gotten anywhere.

7) Unless something significant happens I'm going to divert my energy elsewhere for a while. (I'm in grad school as well.) Thank you all for your opinions. Good luck Alanyst. It's been good hearing your views Padillah, and I really am sorry for misreading your argument the other day. Thank you for your good input. John, your advice on sources really was helpful. I am trying to become more well-read. I'm starting with Bushman and Brodie is next on the list. The best to all of you. ~ Adjwilley (talk) 03:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

alanyst, you've made a valiant effort at using Bushman to demonstrate that Joseph Smith's gold digging was simply one of many activities in which he engaged rather than, as I believe, the salient feature of his youth. But if you look back through your compilation, you'll notice three things: first, the information is largely about the Smith family rather than about Joseph himself; second, many of the sources on which Bushman relies are reports by Joseph (which you accept uncritically) and by members of the Smith family following Joseph's death; third, Bushman frequently tries to make sense of his information with his own rhetorical suppositions ("was this enough to make him a prophet?" "Was there anything uniquely powerful in Smith family dynamics to produce a prophet son?").

Contemporary evidence that Joseph himself actually studied the Bible or that, as a youth, he was interested in religion is virtually non-existent. (For instance, Smith created the First Vision narratives near the end of his life, and early Mormons had probably never heard of them.) I'm sure Joseph did manual labor as a child, but as he got older, he did as little as possible. "Glass looking" and other magical practices were his ticket out of that life. Likewise, even during his professional gold-digging years there's nary a mention of Smith himself wielding a tool. Joseph consulted his seer stone, the other folks did the manual labor of trying to catch treasures slipping through the earth.

As one of his contemporaries recalled, Smith had "a jovial, easy, don't-care way about him that made him lot of warm friends. He was a good talker, and would have made a fine stump speaker if he had had the training. He was known among the young men I associated with as a romancer of the first water. I never knew so ignorant a man as Joe...to have such a fertile imagination. He could never tell a common occurrence in his daily life without embellishing the story with his imagination; yet I remember that he was grieved one day when old Parson Reed told Joe that he was going to hell for his lying habits."

alanyst, you've done your best at trying to prevent useful information from being included in the lede, but you're on the losing side of this argument. I'd suggest either accepting my sentence in the lede or proposing another forum for discussion so that we can get more non-Mormons involved in the conversation. I'd be happy to have you frame the question.--John Foxe (talk) 11:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

It feels very asymmetrical for one party to offer compromise after compromise and for the other to constantly hold out for more, but I am making one last effort to accommodate Foxe despite my misgivings about WP:UNDUE. I have made this edit to the lede, which provides the useful information that Smith's family had financial hardship, that Smith engaged in manual labor (amply supported by Bushman, Foxe's POV notwithstanding), and that he also helped search for lost treasure. John Foxe, this is your chance to show whether you can accept a good faith compromise or whether you will simply use it as a springboard to eventually morph it into your own favored wording. alanyst 14:43, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Your good faith attempt at compromise is only a conflation of personal notions that would require a footnote to a reliable source.

Smith didn't "help search for lost treasure," he was the leader of a band of treasure seekers who convinced the gullible that buried gold could be found on their land through use of supernatural forces. The lede should mention that Joseph Smith spent at least three years searching for gold through occult means before he found the golden plates through occult means. In other words, we need an unstated connection between Smith's use of the seer stone to con the unwary in treasure seeking and his use of a seer stone to translate the Book of Mormon. Such information, supported by all reliable sources, negatively reflects on the character and credibility of Joseph Smith and should therefore be made known to the reader of this article right up front in the lede.--John Foxe (talk) 15:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I am disappointed but not surprised at your refusal to honor WP:NPOV. Goodbye. alanyst 16:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Foxe, your unyielding demands are absurd. It is ridiculous to try and reason or compromise with you lately. And for some inexplicable reason, you feel the need to continuously bring up the "reflects negatively" point, which is entirely irrelevant to whether or not the detail should be included. I think analyst's edit is acceptable; it adds the financial struggle of the Smiths into the lede (a fitting detail for the summary, I believe). Foxe wishes to paint a Smith that would never lift a finger, but even if that was the case for 3 years (which I doubt) there are certainly documented statements that he did manual labor previously. Foxe, every explanation you have given in this long conversation flies in the face of NPOV. It seems that want this "scandalous" detail in and you want nothing to obstruct it. ...comments? ~BFizz 16:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

An absolute joke that I will get an instant indefinite block if I revert this page yet this guy seems to be allowed to run riot doing whatever the hell he likes without consequence. Is it any wonder I found it impossible to cooperate with him? Routerone (talk) 16:07, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Two wrongs don't make a right, Routerone, and please watch your civility. Discuss the content, not contributors. tedder (talk) 16:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a shot at my own compromise wording. If it is (or can be tweaked to be) acceptable to the Mormon majority, that would be great. (I do think footnotes are necessary to help limit changes by IPs.) If we can't agree, then I propose we move on to the Mediation Cabal for informal mediation.--John Foxe (talk) 17:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Now that alanyst has reverted me without prior discussion or any further attempt at compromise, I'll provide a day for further reflection and comment and then move on to the Mediation Cabal, unless someone believes there's a more appropriate forum in which to try to resolve this controversy.--John Foxe (talk) 17:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

[Sigh] why can't you be satisfied with a compromise? Adjwilley (talk) 18:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd be glad to compromise. But the consensus of Mormons refuses to allow material that negatively reflects on the character and credibility of Joseph Smith to be included in the lede. As Edward Everett Hale famously said, "I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do something. And I will not let what I cannot do interfere with what I can do." --John Foxe (talk) 19:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

@Analyst, I'm sorry but the item that needs to be included in the lead is Smith's use of occult practices. Not his search for treasure. Your compromise makes him sound even more goody-goody by getting on his hands and knees and digging for treasure. What I believe John Foxe is trying to establish is that Smith's use of the occult wasn't just tangential and it wasn't in passing. It was deliberate and ongoing. And it was based on a belief, that Smith held, that it worked. These are important and salient facts that should be presented to the reader in a balanced manner and should not be glossed over. Not to speak for him but I feel Foxe's insistence on this piece of information "reflecting badly" points to Mormon desire to keep it out of the article rather than Foxe's desire to include it. And even if it did it would simply be as a counter to the many many statements praising Smith throughout the article. Padillah (talk) 19:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

@Padillah: Better? alanyst 20:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is. John, I'd like your input (I know I'm not as well read in this as you) but I would push to try to accept this as an honest compromise (always assuming it's valid historically). It mentions that the treasure hunting was done by occult means but leaves those means open to explanation in the article body. As mentioned above the outlook on these practices was significantly different than it is now. Padillah (talk) 12:33, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Here are the problems with the two sentences at issue: "He was influenced by both the Christian revivalist atmosphere and folk magic practices of the time. His family's financial hardships led him to seek a living performing manual labor and helping to search for lost treasure with the aid of a seer stone."

• The notion that it was his family's hardships that forced Joseph to become a practitioner of the occult is wrongheaded. For one thing, that's a "devil made me do it" excuse. For another, Joseph Smith, Sr. and other members of the family (especially Alvin) were well into practicing folk magic before Joseph demonstrated how good he was at it. In fact, if dad had stopped drinking, been less of a small-scale gullible ("deceiving and being deceived," as the Bible has it), and wasted less of his time drawing magic circles and the like, the whole family would have been less dysfunctional.
• There's no primary source I know of that indicates Joseph was paid to do manual labor. Of course, he had done manual labor on his own family farm.
• The treasure Joseph hunted was not necessarily "lost"; it was "hidden."
• The phrase "help search for treasure" is misleading. Smith was the leader; he pointed out where the treasure was supposed to be by occult means, the others did the digging, and then he came up with excuses why they couldn't get their hands on it.
• Joseph used other methods besides seer stones to look for treasure: divining rods, magic spells, visions, etc.

So it's simpler, more historically correct, and better stylistically to say what I've tried to say above:

"Smith was reared in western New York during the Second Great Awakening, a period of religious enthusiasm, by a poor family influenced by both contemporary religion and folk magic. Smith himself claimed the ability to find buried treasure through supernatural means." Why not adopt those sentences (or something like them) as a compromise? I'm even willing to forgo the footnotes.--John Foxe (talk) 13:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Foxe v. Bushman

@Padillah: We're fortunate to have the first few chapters of Bushman's Rough Stone Rolling online at Google Books to allow anyone to see what this reliable source, at least, says. I urge you to go ahead and read them, or at least chapter 2 which dwells on this particular debate, and evaluate these competing sentences against what the scholarship says. But for your convenience I will provide a bit of comparison below. alanyst 15:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Foxe	Bushman	Foxe replies
"The notion that it was his family's hardships that forced Joseph to become a practitioner of the occult is wrongheaded." Alanyst notes: The sentence doesn't say this; it says that the hardships led to his seeking a living doing manual labor and helping search for lost treasure; nothing about his "becoming a practitioner". Foxe is setting up a strawman.	Page 47: "Now they had at least two land payments to make and no Alvin to help out. To raise money, Joseph Jr. and Hyrum scouted the countryside for work. In October 1825, Joseph and his father took jobs in Pennsylvania digging for Josiah Stowell Sr., who believed that a Spanish silver mine was buried near Harmony." Page 48: "The loss of the farm did not end Joseph Jr.'s work excursions....He was drawn back to the area...where he had been working before the loss of the farm." Page 51: "In 1825, when the family needed money, Joseph Jr. agreed to help Stowell find the Spanish gold, but with misgivings."	Joseph Smith was engaged in magical practices long before Alvin died, and as Vogel writes "the sincerity with which Joseph refused Stowell's offer is open to question since he was already an active treasure seer." (70-71)
"There's no primary source I know of that indicates that Joseph was paid to do manual labor." Alanyst notes: See the secondary source at right that unequivocally states this.	Page 48: "Josiah Stowell Sr. employed [Joseph Smith Jr.] to do farm chores and perhaps work in his mills....When he was not employed by Stowell in 1826, Joseph worked for Joseph Knight Sr. who ran carding machinery and a gristmill in addition to his farms."	I was careful to say "primary" rather than "secondary" because I know what Bushman says, but if you check the citation, the reference runs to a Mormon secondary source, not to a primary source as one would expect. I realize this is Wikipedia and I can't go behind Bushman; I'm just saying this isn't the most reliable piece of evidence.
The treasure Joseph hunted was not necessarily "lost"; it was "hidden." Alanyst says: the terms can be used almost interchangeably in this regard. Both terms appear in Bushman, as documented to the right. I won't object if someone insists on 'hidden' instead of 'lost' but it's a pretty trivial thing to worry about.	Page 48: treasure "reputed to lie hidden underground" Page 49: "For a time Joseph used a stone to help people find lost property and other hidden things" Page 50: "buried treasure and lost mines" Page 51 (quoting Oliver Cowdery): "...which held the hidden treasures of the earth" Page 52: "New York law specified that anyone pretending to have skill in discovering lost goods should be judged a disorderly person." "Joseph may have helped look for lost mines again." "Joseph said that he had looked for 'hidden treasures in the bowels of the earth...he had frequently ascertained where lost property was.'"	It's no big deal, but "lost" implies something forgotten. "Buried" is also an acceptable adjective.
The phrase "help search for treasure" is misleading.	Page 48: "When his men failed to locate the cache, Stowell enlisted the Smiths' help, and Joseph and his father agreed to join the diggers in Harmony." Page 49: "Having failed on his own to find the Spanish bullion, [Stowell] thought Joseph could help." Page 51: "After 1823, [Joseph Jr.] continued to be involved in treasure expeditions but not as the instigator or leader"	Vogel writes, "During this early phase [1822-25] of Smith's treasure-seeking activities, money was not a principal motivation....Nor was the young scryer content to share power and recognition with other adepts, but strove to dominate." (42) [Quoting Smith's nephews], Smith "would attend with his peep-stone in his hat, and his hat drawn over his face, and would tell them how deep they would have to go; but when they would find no trace of the chest of money, he would peep again, and weep like a child, and tell them the enchantment had removed it on account of some sin or thoughtless word; finally the enchantment became so strong that he could not see and so the business was abandoned." (74)
Joseph used other methods besides seer stones to look for treasure.	Bushman only mentions the seer stone in connection with Joseph's treasure seeking. If he used other methods, they were incidental enough that it's not undue weight to leave them out of the lede where surely they would be too much detail.	Quinn writes that "somewhere between age eleven and thirteen (1817-19), Joseph Jr. began following his father's example in using a divining rod" (33); "during the 1820s the Smith family believed in and used ritual magic, astrology, talismans, and parchments inscribed with magic words and occult symbols" (67); "'Drawing magic circles or sooth saying' was 'one important interest of Joseph Smith's family....[their neighbor] described how Lucy Mack Smith helped direct her son to treasure-digging locations by dreams she had." (68) Vogel writes that according to rumor "Joseph resorted to blood sacrifice in an attempt to break the charm that held the treasure, just as he had done on the Chase Hill in Manchester." (73)

alanyst 15:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC); --John Foxe (talk) 18:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference to Google Books. That'll help me a lot. Aside from the character assessment of the father (which is not our call here) you bring up valid points. How about:

"His family's financial hardships led him to seek employment as a hired hand as well as searching for lost or hidden treasure with the aid of a seer stone."

This roots his actions firmly in the quest for family upkeep, establishes that others employed him to do this (it was not for his own treasure), and establishes Smith as the searcher if not leader. It avoids directly calling it "occult" or "supernatural" and removes any claims Smith may or may not have made. All those intricacies are addressed in the article body anyway. What say you? Padillah (talk) 15:23, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts but it doesn't work for me grammatically: "to seek employment as a...as well as searching for..." lacks the parallel verb agreement to make it clear that "searching for" is part of the "employment" predicate and not the "led him to" predicate. Also "employment as a hired hand" seems redundant, and I'd simply say "hidden" or "lost" (either one will do) rather than both "lost or hidden" to avoid wordiness. Still, I agree with the intent of your suggestion, and I'm grateful to have a good-faith interlocutor. alanyst 16:57, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Although Bushman's a fine scholar, he's also a Mormon apologist, who while writing the book weighed what the General Authorities might or might not find it acceptable for him to say about Smith's treasure hunting. (Bushman's On the Road with Joseph Smith (2007) is revealing in this regard.) The picture of Smith's activities as given in Bushman must be balanced against other reliable sources such as Vogel's biography, but especially Quinn's Early Mormonism and the Magic World View. (1998)

Smith was practicing magic before his family's financial hardships, and the hired hand business is a weak straw, at least for inclusion in the lede.

Now, you need to explain to me why my alternative (or some variation of it) is not acceptable: "Smith was reared in western New York during the Second Great Awakening, a period of religious enthusiasm, by a poor family influenced by both contemporary religion and folk magic. Smith himself claimed the ability to find buried treasure through supernatural means."--John Foxe (talk) 18:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

alanyst makes some good points, but so far I think Padillah's is the best option I've seen. Ditto on the "lost or hidden" - I don't have a preference. Adjwilley (talk) 18:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

What happened to alanyst's last post? It was there before, now it's gone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adjwilley (talk • contribs) 18:23, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to go with Good Faith wallop/edit conflict.

Analyst, I'll review the grammar again, I knew what I was communicating and didn't see the conflation the way you did. I currently am hard-pressed to format one sentence that softens the occult use with family hard-ships and regular manual labor. I'll keep looking. Padillah (talk) 18:35, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd appreciate someone explaining what's wrong with my suggestion.--John Foxe (talk) 18:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

...again. alanyst 19:24, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

(EC, I was working at it) Foxe, I think the argument against the second sentence is that it is too broad and results in, basically, a repeat of the "folk magic" line. To continue the train of thought started in the "folk magic" sentence we need to either expound or extrapolate to include some level of detail. But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong. Padillah (talk) 18:43, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there is enough support in the references to infer that Smith practiced magic as a result of financial hardship. I think that is a distortion of the sources. Smith started practicing magic during a period (c. 1820-22) when the Smith family was doing pretty well. This was years before Alvin's death and their later financial difficulties and mortgage problems. Also, Smith's father likely practiced magic in Vermont during prosperous times. I don't think the sources back up a correlation between magic and hard times. COGDEN 19:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I've made an edit that shifts the causal sentence into a correlative one. If COgden is correct, then it may still be incorrect to assert this correlation. ...comments? ~BFizz 01:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I reverted Foxe's change ("Smith was reared in western New York during the Second Great Awakening, a period of religious enthusiasm. He was influenced by both the Christian revivalist atmosphere and the folk magic practices of the time. His family's financial hardships led him to seek a living performing manual labor and helping to search for lost treasure with the aid of a seer stone." to "Smith was reared in western New York during the Second Great Awakening in a family influenced by both folk magic and contemporary religious enthusiasm. Smith himself claimed ability to find buried treasure through supernatural means.")

The "contemporary" didn't really make sense the way it was worded. More importantly, "Christian revivalist atmosphere" didn't need to be stricken out - I think most would agree that was a significant factor in Joseph's life. Also, we were trying to find a revision without the contested words "claimed" and "supernatural", and I thought there was a reasonable consensus to include "of the time." What we've got now isn't perfect, but I think the latest edit was a step in the wrong direction. That aside, I do appreciate the effort at compromise (footnotes) Adjwilley (talk) 22:20, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The second sentence—"Smith himself claimed ability to find buried treasure through supernatural means."—is the reason for this RfC in the first place (look at the request and it is verbatim). This is the second time Foxe has added the sentence since the RfC started. Please do not add it again until a consensus has been reached, either here or at the next stage in dispute resolution. 72Dino (talk) 22:46, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually it's the third - [1], [2], [3]. Starting to smell more strongly of WP:TE/WP:EW. --FyzixFighter (talk) 23:20, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems that the "Smith himself claimed ability..." language is the real issue. I think that the point needs to be made that Smith was more than a passive participant in treasure digging, but perhaps not quite in the way proposed by John Foxe. I would proposes something like the following: As a youth, Smith was influenced by the Christian revivalism of the Second Great Awakening, and by a widespread belief in folk magic, through which powers Smith sold his services as a treasure hunter. COGDEN 18:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. Adjwilley (talk) 22:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

"through which powers" is weird wording, but the general idea is fine. ...comments? ~BFizz 08:39, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

How about the sentence already there ("Smith was reared in western New York during the Second Great Awakening, a period of religious enthusiasm, in a family influenced by both the Christian culture and contemporary folk magic") plus the sentence, "Smith himself was paid to search for treasure with a seer stone"?--John Foxe (talk) 10:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I still think adding another sentence is too much for the lede. Having a single sentence like this one by Foxe or the proposed sentence by COGDEN would be preferable in my opinion. 72Dino (talk) 14:37, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

How about the following: one sentence and the same number of words that's there now? "Smith, reared in a family influenced by both by contemporary religious enthusiasm and folk magic, was as a young man paid to search for treasure with a seer stone."--John Foxe (talk) 17:15, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

That is acceptable to me except for the link to the archaic use of the term enthusiasm. The WP article indicates it was a pejorative term historically. I think linking to Second Great Awakening would be more helpful to the reader and puts it more in the historical context of the region (so it would be religious enthusiasm). 72Dino (talk) 17:36, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

That's fine with me.--John Foxe (talk) 18:05, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll put that sentence up with the tweak suggested by 72Dino. If it sticks as a consensus, I'll take down the RfC banner in a few days.--John Foxe (talk) 20:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think just me being able to live with the sentence is a consensus. I'd like to hear from others who contribute much more to this discussion than me. 72Dino (talk) 21:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

If you ignore the clause between commas, the sentence becomes "Smith was a young man paid to search for treasure with a seer stone." western New York is deleted, Second Great Awakening is marginalized. I think it's still undue emphasis. Deleting information might not be the way to go. Adjwilley (talk) 22:25, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

72Dino said more than one more sentence was too much—so you added two more sentences and nearly doubled the word count. I've squeezed out some wordiness as well as made substantive changes.

• There's no reason to eliminate mention of Smith's family, especially since it can be so easily included.
• I don't think Smith was ever paid to work as a farmhand. I realize that some secondary sources say so, but I think it's all Mormon malarkey. For every reference to Smith's working as a farmhand you can come up with, I'll provide ten references for his gold digging. Regardless, the subject's WP:UNDUE for the lede.
• Gold digging was common to the period, but it was also often illegal and certainly criticized by rationalists and the clergy. Substitute "marijuana smoking" and I think you'll see the problem with the implication of "widespread."
• In formal writing, animals are "raised"; children are "reared."--John Foxe (talk) 13:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• Padillah said it would be nice to have more information about Smith as a youth, so it didn't seem like Smith sprang out of the ground fully formed. More than one sentence seemed appropriate. If it's a choice between a slightly shorter lead and a slightly more complete picture of Smith's adolescence, I would choose the latter. It wouldn't be accurate to imply that Smith's only activities were folk magic and treasure hunting.
• No problem with mentioning family
• Didn't mean to imply he was paid to work as a farmhand. The point was that he did farm work, which should be less controversial.
• Belief in folk magic was widespread. Not gold digging. The wording was COgden's.
• Good point. Adjwilley (talk) 15:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Bushman, page 48, starting the "Treasure" section, uses a direct quote from a firsthand witness: "Joseph Knight Jr. said his father thought Joseph Smith Jr. was 'the best hand he ever hired.'" It's not footnoted, but one of the Sources Cited in the back of the book is the "Autobiographical Sketch" of Joseph Knight Jr. in the Church Archives, and is very likely to be the primary source that Bushman quotes with confidence. In any case it's clear that Bushman is quoting a primary source and not just speculating. This evidence for Joseph Smith being employed as a farm hand (and a satisfactory one, at that) is certainly a more solid piece of evidence than mere "rumors" of blood sacrifice or claims by Smith's nephews containing details they could not have witnessed firsthand since they weren't alive at the time. alanyst 16:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Without discussing the propriety of Bushman's quoting without citation in an academic work, there's an obvious problem with accepting at face value a son's reminiscence about the testimony of a father who was one of Smith's major supporters. On the other hand, there's plenty of evidence about Smith's treasure hunting. We can toss out the blood sacrifice and testimony of his nephews as rumors and still have plenty to work with. I believe it's accurate "to imply that Smith's only activities were folk magic and treasure hunting." That's what he did for a living and why Issac Hale said he wished Emma dead rather than married to Joseph.

In any case, my point was that mentioning Smith's putative manual labor in the lede is WP:UNDUE because the lede is supposed to reflect the article itself, and Smith's manual labor is never mentioned there.--John Foxe (talk) 17:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• That last assertion is false. From the Early Years section of the article: "Meanwhile, Smith continued traveling western New York and Pennsylvania as a treasure seeker and also as a farmhand."
• First it was asserted that no sources supported the statement that Joseph Smith was ever employed as a farmhand. Then when Bushman was cited it was claimed that no primary sources supported it. Then when Joseph Knight Jr. was quoted it was claimed that his statement could not be taken at face value because his father was a supporter of Joseph Smith. Contrast this to the manner in which critical claims are accepted at face value even when they are based on rumor, speculation, or the testimony of people who either were not present or who had clear motives for harming the reputation of Smith.
• Given this obvious bias in the treatment of reliable sources depending on how they depict Joseph Smith, it is not surprising that the Early Years section is heavily weighted toward folk magic and treasure-seeking, and that the other significant aspects of Smith's early life are minimized. There's almost nothing there about financial hardship or family dynamics, and only three sentences on the family's complex religious background, despite plenty of material and treatment in Rough Stone Rolling at least (and possibly in other reliable sources not currently in my possession). alanyst 18:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Certainly we as editors can't go behind Bushman; he's a reliable authority. But I flatly don't believe what he says about Smith being a paid farmhand without better primary source support. Regardless, mention of Smith's farm labor in the lede would be WP:UNDUE because it's Smith treasure hunting, not his farm work, that influenced the development of Mormonism.--John Foxe (talk) 23:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Then there appears to be a difference of opinion regarding what we are trying to do with the lead. I would suggest, supported by MOS, that we are not trying to communicate ideas in the lead. Rather, we are trying to summarize the article itself. To this end we need something in the lead about his early life, his treasure hunting, his paid labor, his finding the BoM, and his establishing the Church. These are all part of the article body and I think arguments of WP:UNDUE over 4, 3, and even 2, words are ridiculous. All due respect Dino but we will use as many sentences as needs be to communicate the ideas we need to. You can't sum up someone's life in 12 words. We are not trying to top Hemingway. The lead has to be of some substance. We need to work on getting past the introduction of this topic in the lead. Some are going to have to accept the fact that Smith had a checkered past. Some are going to have to accept that he only had a checkered past. Padillah (talk) 14:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

That being said I have no problem adding a sentence "Smith himself was paid to search for treasure with a seer stone". There are other sentances that need to be added regarding his youth but a subject as influential as this cannot simply be left out and if it deserves another sentence then I think we should give it the space it deserves. Padillah (talk) 14:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I think what's in the lede right now is a pretty good summary of the article. Do you think the emphasis of the lede is in some way disproportional to the body itself?--John Foxe (talk) 14:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the current phrasing is acceptable. I also think that, in the future, we should keep suggested edits on the talk page until consensus. I know it's easier to see and work with the actual article but it can look like edit warring to the wrong people.

So are we calling this discussion closed? I hope so. And thank you, everyone, for your input and suggestions. Padillah (talk) 15:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

We'll give it a couple more days, and if those sentences stay stable, I'll remove the RfC box. Thanks for your participation, Padillah.--John Foxe (talk) 17:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Since the lede now seems stable, I've removed the RfC box. Hope we'll be able to refer to the extended discussion if a similar issue arises. Thanks to all who participated.--John Foxe (talk) 17:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Suggested Move/Rename

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved per request and discussion. Sorry for the long wait. - GTBacchus^(talk) 10:23, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Joseph Smith, Jr. → Joseph Smith – Already the primary meaning of "Joseph Smith", no compelling reason for the "Jr.". PatGallacher (talk) 14:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The "compelling reason" is - it's his name. We don't name the Martin Luther King, Jr. article "Martin Luther King". Mostly because there was a Martin Luther King and it's a different person. To name this article after Joseph Smith's father is not acceptable. There is a definite distinction between Joseph Smith and Joseph Smith Jr. Especially in the Church. Padillah (talk) 19:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• mild support. The term Joseph Smith is more frequently used than "Joseph Smith, Jr.", and I think the name "Joseph Smith" does have a primary reference to this Joseph Smith. I don't share Padillah's concern about disambiguating Joseph Smith, Sr. When Mormons or others say "Joseph Smith," they are never referring to the father of Joseph Smith, Jr. Unlike the son, the father is always qualified with "Sr." Also, the father is a much more obscure historical figure. Particularly in popular reference, the "Jr." is pretty rarely used. Really, it's only Mormons who like to append the "Jr.", to disambiguate the famous Joseph Smith from the other relatively obscure Joseph Smiths that only Mormons know about, like Joseph F., Joseph Fielding, and Joseph Sr. COGDEN 03:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

  So your reasoning for making the name more ambiguous includes three other "Joseph Smiths"? Not the obvious route, but I'll give you points on class. I'll also give you a redirect page for those that are looking for "Joseph Smith" because you are right, they usually mean Jr. I'd also like a DAB page that lists some of the other Joseph Smiths in an effort not to appear like this is the only Joseph Smith there is. I still stand by naming the article itself after the person it's about. Padillah (talk) 12:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

All I was saying is that only Mormons typically use the "Jr." because only Mormons feel the need to disambiguate. Everybody else knows who you mean when you say "Joseph Smith" (and Mormons know this too, actually). We should follow WP:MOSNAME, which says that Wikipedia "uses the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." We have already determined that this is the main topic for the term Joseph Smith, because Joseph Smith already links here. But we ought to make sure we follow the practice of WP:MOSNAME in actually naming the article. COGDEN 19:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be confrontational, just poking fun. Sorry if I got some toes on that last one.

A big problem I have is with the equivocating that "only Mormons" know about the other Joseph Smiths. They are, apparently, notable enough that they all have their own articles. But I can't blind myself to the obvious predominance of Joseph Smith Jr. Either way is fine with me. Padillah (talk) 20:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

This does not show on the RfM page. Is there something wrong? Padillah (talk) 20:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

It is odd that the bot isn't picking this page up. I have no strong feelings for or against the different page title. Chalk me up as weak support, since I guess MOSNAME does suggest we drop "Jr.". ...comments? ~BFizz 21:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I just learned (by accident) that Barack Obama is a Junior too (well, actually Barack Obama II). His dad is Barack Obama, Sr. on Wikipedia. Adjwilley (talk) 18:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Though it has not gathered strong support, there also has been no opposition voiced to this move proposal, and it appears to be supported by current WP guidelines. Can an admin kindly perform this move? Are there any last-minute opposers to this action? ...comments? ~BFizz 03:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

synopsis

I added descriptions of major notes about smith's life i.e. the "wanted felon and insurrectionist comment". I know I know I know this is not a fun debate for anyone to have right now but this very article has several points at which smith is quoted supporting insurrection. I haven't added anything to this article that wasn't already here on that point. and there are several other points where his dealings in the banking scandal and out running a warrant are mentioned. so I haven't added anything on that point. being a wanted felon doesn't necessarily make him guilty. but if this is going to be a truly honest article we can't be afraid to mention the grimy portions of anyone's life along with the brighter spots. I haven't done anything else today but tell the rest of the truth that this article seems to purposefully omit. Scottdude2000 (talk) 20:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

very well KWW, I will wait for some consensus. if I do not hear any posts back I will make the addition again. happy editing.Scottdude2000 (talk) 22:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

There's not enough support in the article for saying Smith was a wanted felon and insurrectionist. He was certainly believed to be in insurrection at times, and appears to have agreed with some of the stuff Rigdon said, but calling him an "insurrectionist" is completely over the top.

You point out that being a "wanted felon" doesn't necessarily make him guilty, but calling him a "wanted felon" with no further explanation is essentially calling him a felon (that is wanted). You'd also have to define felon, since the definition has changed, and "felon" can mean a number of things, including murderer, rapist, arsonist, theif, drug dealer. . . all of which were not the case. Adjwilley (talk) 23:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

If you asked a notable historian, "Who was Joseph Smith?" they would probably not immediately respond with anything like "wanted felon and insurrectionist." Depending on their POV, they might say "liar" or "fraud", but "wanted felon" and "insurrectionist" don't really describe Smith's life in general. ...comments? ~BFizz 01:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

almost every american who's had a basic civ class knows that being wanted doesn't make you guilty. but if this is too harsh hows "suspect in a criminal investigation". thats about as neutral as it gets while still stating the facts. here's whats not acceptable though. completely omitting the facts. and I don't see how agreeing with insurrection doesn't make you an insurrectionist. can someone explain the logic of that one please? Scottdude2000 (talk) 02:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Easy. I agree with the revolution in Libya, but I'm not an insurrectionist or a revolutionary. I agree in some respects with Julian Assange's Wikileaks movement, but I'm not a hacker, whistle-blower, or a "traitor." Agreeing with insurrection doesn't make you an insurrectionist. (As a side note, it's not entirely clear just how much Smith agreed with the insurrection speech.) Also, I think BFizz made a better point then I did, so you should probably address that too. Adjwilley (talk) 03:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

There's a huge difference between "completely omitting the facts" and "not including something in the first paragraph". ...comments? ~BFizz 03:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

but he was a criminal suspect was he not. when did being a criminal suspect on the run from the law become incidental?! I'm fine with going soft on the language. that much is fair. criminal suspect I think is as fair as it gets. but if we're going to mention his polygamy and theocratic beliefs we should also throw bone to the whole wanted by law/run out of town for fear of the noose thing lol. it's not minor... criminal suspect is the fairest way to put this.Scottdude2000 (talk) 06:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

It's true that Smith was accused at various times of a number of felonies including treason, that he was a fugitive for several years from the state of Missouri, and that he was involved in a small war with the Missouri militia. This is all mentioned in the article, including the lead. The list of descriptive labels are supposed to be the descriptions of the broad categories of his primary historical contribution. Smith was not simply an outlaw like Billy the Kid. And he wasn't clearly an insurrectionist in the sense that that he was advocating positive insurrection. I think you misunderstand his comments in Missouri, where he warned that if Mormons were attacked, a Muhammad-like holy war would follow. This is not insurrectionism in any sense of the term that I am aware. COGDEN 11:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

"Criminal suspect" is one of those phrases that really only makes sense in the present tense. The issues have certainly been resolved in the intervening years. "Insurrectionist" seems a bit flamboyant. I can't help but think your goal is to introduce flamboyant language into the lead.—Kww(talk) 12:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

First off: An hour? That's all you waited? An hour? That's a little gung-ho for a volunteer website. I try to contribute as much as the next man but even I have stuff to do. I can't sit and stare at this page all day waiting for someone to make a change. With that in mind I think the points you bring up do need to be in the lead. And if you read the lead you will find, they are. To reduce the complexities of the 1838 War down to "he was an insurrectionist" is simpleton. More than just Smith was involved, more than just insurrection was at stake. The conviction and it's cause are both mentioned in the lead, which gives a much more complete picture than simply stating that he was a "convicted felon". I have a friend that is a "convicted felon" he was peeing off his porch outside when a little girl saw him, poof "convicted felon". "Criminal Suspect" doesn't fit because he wasn't a suspect, he was convicted. Nobody thought he did it, they had decided that he'd done it. I agree that we need to present a complete picture in the lead and, in as much as we need to use more words than we should. But this is just redundant and flamboyant and servs no real purpose. Padillah (talk) 12:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

padilah, there is also a whole lot more to him that "he was a theocrat" or "he was a polygamist"... the lead is intentionally short and meant to bring up the major bullet points. and as far as a contribution to history goes, it seems to me that it's not just about a contribution but one's weight and story within history. what did smith contribute to history by being a polygymist? this isn't so much about contribution to history (although that is a factor) as it is about the major highlights i think. Scottdude2000 (talk) 17:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Then I think there is a question of misidentifying the lead. The entire set of paragraphs that precede the article body are considered the lead, not simply the first sentence. Are you arguing for defects such as those presented to be summarized in the opening paragraph? That is an interesting notion and I suppose it does warrant discussion. What say the public? What are the criteria for mention in the opening paragraph? Is the opening paragraph different than the lead? Should mention in the opening paragraph add weight to a statement? Why, with the possible exception of polygamy, are only meritus associations made in the opening paragraph?

my appologies yes. I'm still getting acclimated to wiki lingo. I meant the first sentence.Scottdude2000 (talk) 18:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Just a clarification about comments above: Joseph Smith was not a convicted felon. He was probably convicted of a misdemeanor "disorderly person" charge in 1826, but the felony state treason charge in Missouri never made it to trial because he escaped, and the felony state treason charge in Illinois never made it to trial because he was killed. COGDEN 18:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

ok thats why I used the term criminal suspect originally since he never actually went on trial but was on the run several times and wanted. clearly this is a point of contention for the regular editors on this article. all this is besides the point though. either he was wanted for the banking fraud or he was felon depending on your perspective. my only point is bare minimum he was wanted on serious charges for which there is considerable evidence backing their validity. therefor, in my opinion, since the leed and the first couple opening lines are basically a quick breeze through the major events about his life and who he is on paper, it should mention that he was wanted (the language choice of this can be played with).Scottdude2000 (talk) 18:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Can we also add the phrase "...and a lot of people didn't like him" at the end? That is also true. Adjwilley (talk) 20:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Id be all for that if I wasn't so afraid of mormons casting a spell on me. haha but seriously listen, I knew this would be a contentious request but there's no need to turn this into a heated discussion. My request differs from your hypothetical because a) it's serious and that would be a silly jab that's far from a neutral and objective examination of the relevant facts and b) this article isn't just about the publics common conception as true as your statement may be. This is about who he was. bright and dark. I knew this would be contentious because some here obviously believe he's all dark. and some believe he's all bright. I think more than anything the facts should win. Scottdude2000 (talk) 00:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The fact is, this just wasn't a big enough part of Smith's life to merit inclusion in the first paragraph. ...comments? ~BFizz 05:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Opening_paragraph for the style guide of what a biographical first paragraph should contain. I don't really see how "convicted felon" or similar, in Smith's case, falls under any of those categories. ...comments? ~BFizz 07:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I feel like being wanted for banking fraud is a big deal. My grandfather was a felon. that note might not be on his epitaph but if I had to sum up the major things he was and did his crimes would come up. see the thing is, by making this about major verses minor portions of time in his life you essentially erode the sentence by ignoring the choices he was known for. He spent his whole youth on a farm but it doesn't say farmer in the first sentance and he spent much more time on that than he did a political theorist or military leader (which btw, if you're going to include the fact that he was a military leader the insurrectionist thing should be reconsidered since it was his military that started an insurrection, or if he wasn't in charge of their actions that is what is called a coup and therefore he wasn't a leader he was an advisor to whoever was in charge). for the article to be truly neutral the first sentance can't just be this ode to joseph smith. it has to cover everything.Scottdude2000 (talk) 22:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

"the choices he was known for" - he was not well known for "banking fraud" nor for being "wanted". When I say "big part of his life", it isn't necessarily large portions of time, but significance. Historians don't seem to make a big deal out of it in Smith's case, as far as I am aware. The third paragraph clearly states that Smith "was imprisoned on capital charges". It's too much of a stretch to push it into the first paragraph. ...comments? ~BFizz 03:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

ok. that I understand and think is a fair point. maybe the military leader language needs work though going back to my earlier point. I have trouble calling the guy a military leader if his military started a war without either his knowledge or permission. if it was something he knew about and ordered then insurrectionist isn't far from the truth. either way don't you think that language needs to be tweaked to either reflect one or both of those scenarios? Scottdude2000 (talk) 05:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Smith led Zion's Camp, and later was the general of the Nauvoo Legion; there seems to be ample evidence that he was a "military leader". While to some degree I suppose it is correct to call him an insurrectionist, I hesitate to use this word in the lede since it is so vague. I think I'm starting to see what you are getting at, though. Smith repeatedly rebelled against the political power over him: he performed "glass looking" (an illegal act), he established the Kirtland Safety Society despite his failure to acquire a banking charter, and he (with others) had the Nauvoo Expositor press destroyed, and established martial law in Nauvoo. I could understand the addition of this general idea to the lede: that Smith disregarded the law when it blocked him from reaching his objectives. ...comments? ~BFizz 03:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

yeah that's basically the gist of this. you're right the word insurrectionist is probably too vague. I'm a noob to this wikiediting thing so what word(s) would you choose that's neutral but objectively truthful fizz? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottdude2000 (talk • contribs) 06:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not really sure. political theorist vaguely alludes to the idea, though perhaps too vaguely to do it justice. Do any other editors have good ideas on this? (As a side note, I think that having both theocrat and political theorist is a bit redundant) ...comments? ~BFizz 20:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

My notion of a theocrat is someone who makes decisions for his subordinates in the name of God, such as having folks move from New York to Ohio, or from Ohio to Missouri, or from Missouri to Illinois. Or it's establishing the United Order of Enoch, or the Kirtland bank, or Zion's Camp on the basis of divine revelation.--John Foxe (talk) 20:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd be happy with the simple term "political leader" for the first sentence, as long as the fact that he tried to establish a theocratic kingdom is mentioned somewhere in the lead. COGDEN 01:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

How would you word that statement, and where do you think it should be added?--John Foxe (talk) 17:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The article does not work

I can not access the Joseph Smith article, it does not work.79.209.37.150 (talk) 12:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Several admins are aware of the redirect problem caused by the move. Padillah (talk) 13:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I've done a partial restore back to 6 July pending a further fix, a developer may be needed. The remaining history can still be seen by admins but the software returns a server error when one tries to undelete the whole history. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the help. Where would we find a developer to get further help? Padillah (talk) 17:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest asking at WP:VPT. I'm guessing it is too large of a rev-undelete to be handled through the web. Please post here with a link to where you ask- for instance, was the "several admins" comment above on a user talk page or ANI? tedder (talk) 17:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

That's what I'd think, WP:VPT. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. The "several Admins" above was individual admin pages (specifically Gwen Gale and Bwilkins ). I know this article can get pretty busy at times and I didn't want swarms of editors getting swarms of admins to make swarms of corrections. That would only exacerbate the issue. Thanks for the advice on leaving a link, that would help others keep track of what is being asked and where. Good point. I will check out WP:VPT and see what I find. I will report back in any case. Padillah (talk) 19:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok. I posted a request for help getting the page history back. Let's see what happens. Thanks everyone for the input and guidance. Padillah (talk) 20:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks,Padillah.--John Foxe (talk) 21:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Joseph Smith's Last Dream

The following text is taken from an 1863 Salt Lake City Almanac published by W. W. Phelps Digital photographs of the actual pages can be seen below. Look at Joseph Smith's Last Dream - The Full Account as Told by W. W. Phelps How can I add this dream to this wikipedia biography?79.209.69.49 (talk) 09:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

First, it would be important to explain the relevance of someone's twenty-year-old remembrance of someone else's dream to an encyclopedia article, especially since Richard Bushman's 700-page biography of Joseph Smith doesn't mention it.--John Foxe (talk) 14:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

This last dream shows the death of Joseph Smith in a new light! That is the relevance of this dream.79.209.69.49 (talk) 15:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Let me suggest you first discuss this second-hand account of a dream at the Death of Joseph Smith article. If Bushman doesn't mention it in a 700-page book, it's going to be way too specific for this general article.--John Foxe (talk) 16:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Ditto what Foxe said. ...comments? ~BFizz 17:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Raised by a poor family?

The article states that Joseph was "...reared in western New York by a poor family...". It doesn't bother me one wit whether this is identified (better than his being raised in wealth says I). My pondering is what we mean by poor. For example, if everyone in his community was financially struggling, but while they may have been borrowing money from family they had sufficient for their needs, historical context would suggest they were actually well off. So, what is the source, and does their poverty have proper context for the time and place. I'm not looking for a change. I do believe the Smith family were struggling. I just wonder if is historically and contextually accurate. Either a little more detail or the term seems too vague. Yes, I know I've acted unwisely in the past here so I promise to just bring this up and let it go.

Summary: poor compared to what baseline?--Canadiandy talk 08:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Bushman covers the family's financial situation around the time of Joseph's birth on pp 18–20 of Rough Stone Rolling. Prior to the incident in which Joseph Sr. got ripped off in the crystallized ginseng deal (early 1800s), the Smiths were essentially "middle class"—they owned a farm, ran a store, had cash savings, etc. Bushman says the ginseng deal that went awry "was a fateful turning point in the Smith family fortunes". They had to sell the farm and use their savings to avoid debt. It's at that point that Lucy Smith starts saying the family knew the "embarrassment of poverty". Bushman says "they crossed the boundary dividing independent ownership from tenancy and day labor". Essentially, they became lower class. Bushman notes that because of family help, "though poor, Joseph and Lucy would not starve or be shorthanded when they needed help."

So I believe the classification of the Smith family as "poor" at this time can be justified both by the Smiths' self-identification—Lucy says they were in poverty—and by Bushman's modern characterization of their financial state. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Lead and narrow perspective

The opening paragraph states: "Regarded as a prophet by his followers, Smith was also a theocrat, city planner, military leader, political theorist, and polygamist." Then it proceeds to only list controversial issues. It does not address his city planning, military organizing and leadership (except to say they lost the war - without any clarification as to why), no political theorizing nothing. Instead a tawdry list of the most loved topics of critics. Nothing that addresses anything positive about the man Smith. Is this how all articles are written on Wikipedia? Could someone provide one similar example? I have been away for a while and this article has turned into a hack job that does nothing to address the man and everything to address the interests of those benevolent anti-Mormons that are so interested in Mr. Smith. -^StormRider 12:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

"Smith led his followers to settle at Nauvoo, Illinois" - this is one part of the lede that could expound on the "city planner" part, explaining how Smith caused the construction of the (at the time) largest city in Illinois from scratch. What other positives do you find lacking? Which points of the lede do you find excessively negative? ...comments? ~BFizz 13:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I guess it depends on one's subjective sense of what it "positive". I find the information in the lead about Smith's founding of a church "positive", in the sense that founding a religion is generally seen as something not any old person can pull off, and new religions that are founded generally have positive effects on many people's lives. The bestowal of the golden plates and the publication of new scripture is extremely "positive" if accepted at face value—it's certainly something that Mormons strive to spread word of throughout the world. The mention that his teachings constitute scripture by many is pretty impressive and therefore "positive". The accounts of him and his people being threatened with "extermination" can certainly elicit sympathy, and therefore bestow an aura of a persecuted believer, which many would find "positive". On many points, whether one interprets some things in the lead as "positive" or "negative" might tell us more about the reader and his pre-conceived notions about Smith, which I think is a generally good sign of a NPOV. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I want us to get away from thinking in terms of "positive" vs. "negative," and instead focus our thinking in terms of "notable" vs. "obscure." Whatever one person thinks is a negative, someone else will think it is positive. Take polygamy, for example. If you are a fundamentalist Mormon, or a 19th century Mormon, that was a positive. If you are a mystic, reference to Smith's career in magic is a positive. Yes, his failed military expedition, imprisonment in Missouri, and assassination are not good things to have happened to Smith by any measure, but such was his life, and you can't ignore these very notable events. You don't have to find some obscure "good" thing to balance every notable "bad" thing. Nevertheless, there are plenty of notable "good" things in the intro, such as the golden plates, Book of Mormon, organizing a church, building Zion, building a temple, escaping from prison, building Nauvoo, running for president, his teachings, and having a legacy of 14 million followers. COGDEN 03:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I would assume that the main thing people find distasteful is the sentence in the 2nd paragraph that reads: "During the early 1820s, Smith himself was paid to search for buried treasure with a seer stone." It seems to get deleted every other day. I think there are a few problems with the sentence, and the paragraph as a whole, but to explain them will take a little background. I will start with a brief overview of the lead as it stands now, summarizing the main topics of each paragraph.

• Paragraph 1: Establish (briefly) why Smith was notable: Founder, prophet, theocrat, etc.
• Paragraph 2: History: Born to poor religious family, looked for treasure, golden plates, Book of Mormon, organize church.
• Paragraph 3: History: 1831-1838 - Kirtland, KSS, Zions Camp, Missouri, Mormon war.
• Paragraph 4: History: 1839-1844 - Establish Nauvoo, Run for President, Expositer, and murder.
• Paragraph 5: Legacy: Scripture, unique views, and religious denominations.

Some notable omissions (in my view) are: his theophany, his "revelations", the fact that he claimed to be restoring the primitive church, and his religious background.

Now let me address some specific problems I see.

1. Three paragraphs are devoted to history, three sentences are devoted to legacy.
2. Smith is most notable for being a religious leader, yet over half the lead seems to focus on apparently non-religious activities such as founding cities, banks, armies, and getting in and out of jail. (primarily in paragraphs 3, 4 - the two longest)
3. The treasure sentence disrupts the flow in paragraph 2. It sticks out. It has no tie to the previous sentence, and depending on your point of view, no tie to the following sentence either. The reader can tell it was spliced in after the paragraph was written.
4. Paragraph 2 has no unifying theme, while the others do. (Granted, paragraphs 3 and 4 jump around a bit, but are pretty logical divisions in time.) Paragraph 2 simply tries to cram in too much.
5. The "himself" doesn't really work in the "treasure" sentence.

My specific recommendation

Split paragraph 2 in half. Let the first paragraph focus on the birth, upbringing, family, and religious background. "Religious enthusiasm" is an understatement. Folk religion and folk magic should probably be mentioned. Treasure hunting can be mentioned too, as long as we find a way to tie it in. (One possible way could be through the folk magic. Another could be through the family losing the farm and the hired hand angle. Both would probably be best.) A mention of the first vision would also be appropriate. Then let the second paragraph be on the golden plates, Book of Mormon, and founding a church. This would probably be the "religious" paragraph that is somewhat missing now. Mention the "restoration" aspect, and possibly the revelations and other "visitations" (This could be done in a single sentence). I also recommend expanding the last paragraph slightly with more specifics.

A final note on the treasure hunting with the seer stone: I personally don't think it was one of the more notable achievements of his life. He was never very good at it, and seems to have been pressured into the business anyway. However there seems to be a strong push to keep it, so if we do, we need to make it tie in, and give it the proper context. Second final note: I agree with COgden's comment above, which I didn't read until I had finished writing this. I do think there are some notable things left out of the lead. -- Adjwilley (talk) 04:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. I think the two comments above—by Cogden and Adjwilley—are both quite thoughtful. I could go along with Adjwilley's approach here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Adwilley's suggestions sound reasonable, though for the intro, the devil is always in the details. One problematic thing to do correctly is inclusion of Smith's first vision, given that the meaning and importance of the vision evolved during Smith's lifetime and after his death. While he was alive, the first vision was never more prominent than the visions of Moroni, the vision of the three degrees of glory, or the vision of Elijah, only the first of which is currently mentioned in the intro. The vision is mainly of religious, rather than historical, importance, and may belong in the teachings/legacy paragraph. The vision has the unusual characteristic that discussing it chronologically is a bit of an anachronism, because it implies historical significance that didn't develop until decades later. COGDEN 08:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Cogden's advice up above on getting away from positive and negative is wise indeed and I agree with it. Focusing on what is notable is desired, but one therein may also lie the rub. What is notable to one is not to another. We do not address the many verifiable examples of Smith functioning as a religious person/prophet. There are many situations where he was an instrument of curing people of their maladies, but this is absent from the article. The city of Nauvoo as a city planner to me is not as important as Smith's ability to draw so many people to him in order to make one of the larger cities in the area in that time period. Smith's use of peep stones is of interest to some, but I find it almost of no interest; however, I do think it should be in the article, but not the introduction. Smith was visionary in a literal sense - his revelations and theophanies never stopped.

His first vision may not have been of much focus during his early life, but his legacy can in many ways be focused almost entirely on this event being the stepping stone to forming his life thereafter. I am not sure the notable relates to chronological events has any value; notable is what is most remembered, what is most important about the life of an individual.

I had to laugh when I read the Mormons lost the Mormon War of 1838. This was not a war of the Mormons' choosing. It was a war of the surrounding community against them because they were growing too fast for their comfort. This was not was "war" is the true sense of the word, but a consistent, common reflection of the society rejecting the growth of a new peole in an area; particularly one that favored slavery being overrun by an upstart religion that was against slavery. -^StormRider 10:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

As a never-been-a-Mormon, I find Smith's failed attempts to find buried gold through supernatural means highly significant because they occurred before (and after) he claimed to have found the golden plates. His many failed prophecies and repeated failures to heal his followers from illness are of more significance than his few successes. The First Vision is worthy of mention only as a fraud, concocted to help Smith out of a leadership crisis. I could go on. My point is, as Storm has said above, that significance is in the eye of the beholder. That being the case, this article should give additional weight to the majority, non-believing view of Smith's career.--John Foxe (talk) 14:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

There is a difference between passive non-belief and active disbelief. Treasure-seeking is important to the active disbelief view, in which it is seen as evidence of fraud. However, it is not important to a passive non-belief view, because it was both common to the era, and a minor part of Smith's life in general. Foxe's reasoning about the relevance of the First Vision also clearly and legitimately pertains to an active disbelief view. I'm not so sure that active disbelief is the majority view, as opposed to passive non-belief. I do think it fair to say that the general tone of this article should be respectful, observational, passive non-belief. ...comments? ~BFizz 17:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how we'd measure active versus passive disbelief, by which I think you mean ignorance. But I'm sure if you asked non-Mormons who knew little of Joseph Smith whether his treasure hunting for gold by supernatural means before finding the golden plates by supernatural means was important, a majority would say that it was. Furthermore, I don't believe treasure hunting was all that common in his time and place (pace Bushman and most Mormons). Most clergymen of the era considered it the work of the devil. Nor was treasure hunting a minor part of Smith's life; it's how he made a living as a young man.

I'm all for the "observational" so long Smith's life is recounted in such a way to allow passive unbelievers to become more knowledgeable.--John Foxe (talk) 18:52, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Before this degrades into a "Mormon vs. non-Mormon" tirade I think we must keep in mind the header at the top of the page: this is a controversial article and discussion may escalate. Let's keep cool heads and at least pretend to try and remain neutral.

That being said, I agree the lead could be written better but I have serious misgivings about rewriting it due to the effort put into establishing what is there in the first place. As slip-shod as it may look that is actually the work of several weeks of working together and coming to compromise. We have both points of view represented here, there's no reason we can't include what is important to each point of view. I don't see a real reason to include the "passive non-belief" point of view because that's really non-existent. Few people who don't care about Joseph Smith care what is said about Joseph Smith. So, that leaves us with belief and disbelief. Let's see what a sample of Adjwilley's new first paragraph would look like and go from there. Padillah (talk) 20:25, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The header did take a long time to negotiate in months past. One regret of mine is that I couldn't roust support to footnote it. (I realize footnoting headers is unusual at Wikipedia.) In my opinion, good references make good neighbors.--John Foxe (talk) 21:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I realize that a massive amount of effort that has gone into writing the lead, and that many sentences have been shaped by pages of discussion and arguments. I'll admit that I feel under-qualified to be doing this, and am frankly surprised that I am.

Nonetheless, I am working on a rough draft with the proposed changes, but I would ask that you give me one more day before I present it here. It is in a fairly rough stage, and I don't want to present it and spark controversy over details that I should have smoothed out myself. I will try my best to treat each word and sentence with respect, and I hope to avoid changes that could be considered radical. -- Adjwilley (talk) 21:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Take all the time you need. That you are doing it at all makes you a better man than I am. Or, at least, a better copyeditor. Padillah (talk) 11:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The standard of what is notable in an article is supposed to be an objective standard. It has nothing to do with what is "notable" to one person or group. It only has to do with what topics are typically discussed in the literature. If something receives prominent coverage in the main sources, then it should receive comparable prominence in the article. If something is obscure, as judged by the literature, then it should only receive minor coverage here. In determining this, we look in the general literature or in this case, mainstream historical publications including the most prominent biographies and most-cited books and journal articles. COGDEN 13:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

(new indent) COgden, I think your above premise may be functional with most topics, but Smith is not such a topic. He is a religious figure that has drawn the attention of critics that are against his religious views and who have gone out of their way to attack them primarily through attacking the character of the man. If this is true, then their writings and the focus of their writings are not objective, skew what is notable, and naturally demand the attention of objective historians who must answer their skewed view of Smith. The result is that it is very difficult to address what is notable form an objective standpoint.

This article is a prime example of my point. It only dicusses and addresses Smith from a critics position. What a crtic values is put first and foremost and all else falls by the wayside. Does the fact that others sought out Smith and hired him to hunt for treasure of any value when compared to his entire life? No, it is not important; however, to a religious critic is is of utmost importance because this fact is used to lead their readers to discredit Smith as being a representative of Jesus.

Obscurity is also difficult to ascertain. Obscure according to whom? Who has the biggest megaphone and is heard the most? They automatically become the judge of what is obscrure and what is notable.

I disagree with your standard because it leads to subjective conclusions and very easily leads to a distorted picture of the topic. Neutrality for religious topics in a competitive world such as we have is almost impossible to find or provide. It demands a very high degree of perception to understand the agenda of the writers and the purpose of this article. -^StormRider 11:06, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Brilliantly said, StormRider.--Canadiandy talk 05:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Lead (first draft)

Thank you for the extra time. The following is a first draft reflecting the changes I am proposing. For those interested, the difference between this and the current lead can be seen here. I have also made a list of the specific changes below, where I would appreciate comments on the individual changes.

Joseph Smith, Jr. (December 23, 1805 – June 27, 1844) was an American religious leader and the founder of the Latter Day Saint movement. Regarded as a prophet by his followers, Smith was also a theocrat, city planner, military leader, political theorist, and polygamist.

Smith was born in Sharon, Vermont, the fifth child of Joseph Smith, Sr. and Lucy Mack Smith. Early in his childhood, his family moved to western New York because of crop failures and some ill-fated business ventures. Like many families at the time, Smith's family was influenced by the religious enthusiasm of the Second Great Awakening, but had little affiliation with organized religion; however, they were privately religious, accepting of things like visions and prophecies, and they practiced various kinds of folk religion. In fact, Smith himself was paid to search for buried treasure with a seer stone.

Beginning in the 1820s, Smith was said to have had a series of visions. He claimed that in 1823 an angel directed him to a buried book of golden plates inscribed with a religious history of ancient American peoples. After publishing an English translation of the plates as the Book of Mormon, he organized branches of the Church of Christ, saying that he had been chosen by God to restore the early Christian faith. Church members were later called Latter Day Saints, Saints, or Mormons.

In 1831, Smith moved west to Kirtland, Ohio intending to establish a utopian city called Zion in western Missouri, but Missouri settlers expelled the Saints in 1833. After leading Zion's Camp, an unsuccessful expedition to recover the land, Smith began building a temple in Kirtland. In 1837, a bank established by Smith and other church leaders, suffered a major financial crisis, and the following year Smith joined his followers in northern Missouri. The 1838 Mormon War ensued with Missourians who felt threatened by the rapid growth of Mormon communities. When the Saints lost the war, they were expelled, and Smith was imprisoned on capital charges.

After being allowed to escape state custody in 1839, Smith led his followers to settle at Nauvoo, Illinois on Mississippi River swampland, and there he served as both mayor and commander of its large militia, the Nauvoo Legion. In early 1844, he announced his candidacy for President of the United States. That summer, after the Nauvoo Expositor criticized Smith's practice of polgyamy, the Nauvoo City Council ordered the paper's destruction. During the ensuing turmoil, Smith first declared martial law and then surrendered to the governor of Illinois. Although the governor promised his safety, Smith was murdered while awaiting trial in Carthage, Illinois.

Smith's followers regard many of his publications as scripture. His teachings include unique views about the nature of God, cosmology, family structures, political organization, and religious collectivism. He is seen as one of the most charismatic and inventive figures of American history, and his followers regard him as a prophet of at least the stature of Moses and Elijah. Smith's legacy includes a number of religious denominations, including the Utah based Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Missouri based Community of Christ which collectively claim a growing membership of over 14 million worldwide.

Specific changes made

1. Added names of parents.
2. Added 5th child detail.
3. Added reason they moved from Vermont (crop failures, bad business ventures).
4. "poor family" was removed, however the "poor" is still implied by the crop failures, business ventures, and fifth child. This change was an unintended side-effect of adding the parents names. I realize this was being debated on the talk page, but that was not the reason I dropped it.
5. Added folk religion, private practice of religion, and acceptance of visions (this support from the family could have been formative for Smith).
6. Split 2nd paragraph.
7. Added "series of visions" to second paragraph (indirect reference to 1st vision).
8. Added restoration (link to Christian primitivism) and Early Christianity to end of 2nd paragraph.
9. Last paragraph: added sentence about being seen as charismatic and inventive (sourced in article, and generally agreed upon).
10. Added that his followers view him as prophet on the level as Moses and Elijah. (Slightly redundant from 1st paragraph, but appropriate I think, since that is what he is most notable for.)
11. Added link to Mormon cosmology.
12. Mentioned by name the two largest denominations in his legacy (LDS and CoC). I was going for specifics in the goals, and these seemed like a specific that was lacking. I don't know if there has been discussion over these in the past, so if they end up being a source of contention, I'm fine with taking them back out. It should be noted that Community of Christ is linked twice in the article (once in Religious denominations, once in Family and descendants - both at the very end of the article) and the LDS Church is linked once in Religious denominations. Seeing that Joseph Smith is of high importance to both movements, and that they represent the two largest surviving bodies from the succession crisis, I see no problem with linking them in the Lead.
13. Removed the last reference that sourced the LDS and CoC numbers. It's fairly non-controversial, and the 13,824,854 LDS statistic was outdated anyway. (They passed 14 million in 2010.)
14. Changed "intending to establish the city of Zion" to "intending to establish a utopian city called Zion." I think the clarification helpful.
15. Changed "Kirtland Safety Society" to "a bank" (It's more concise)
16. Changed "Missourians who believed Smith had incited insurrection" to "Missourians who felt threatened by the rapid growth of Mormon communities" As far as I understand, the Missourians were alarmed by the rapid growth of Mormon communities, and Mormons were seen as a religious, economic, and political threat (leaders were afraid the Mormons would vote in blocs, Mormons proselyted to the Indians, and openly discussed how they would inherit the land). The "insurrection" scare started after the Battle of Crooked River in 1838, and was more the last straw than the root cause.
17. Removed "paramilitary", a change inspired by Trodel's recent edit. I think paramilitary is a borderline Weasel word. The term is subjective, depending on what is considered similar to a military force, and what status a force is considered to have. By the way, Bushman's comment on the military-ness of Zions camp says, "Zions Camp did attempt a mild military order, but Joseph was short on military discipline. The company, which included women and children, averaged about 25 miles per day. The men were organized into companies of 12 with a captain over each, but their duties were to cook, make fires, prepare tents, fetch water, and attend to horses, more like trail companies than a military troop."

Note: The last 4 changes were not discussed or proposed on the Talk page. I just made them spontaneously. If there are problems with these changes, I am ok with leaving them out, and bringing them up later. Also, not all of the new wording is mine. I copied and pasted much of it directly from other Wikipedia articles. I say this only because I'd like to avoid taking credit for work that was not my own.

At this point, the lead is just a draft, and what I would like to happen is for all interested parties to concisely state their agreement or disagreement with the specific changes. For example:

• I agree with all of the changes, except numbers 11 and 17. -- Adjwilley (talk)
• I think 3 needs some discussion, 7 is worded poorly, 2 is too much detail, and 16 is unsupported by the sources. -- Adjwilley (talk)
• I think 10 is improper POV insertion. -- Adjwilley (talk)
• I think these are all bad, and we should scrap the whole thing. -- Adjwilley (talk)

Again, this is a first draft, and I expect some of the proposed changes to be vetoed immediately. So let's avoid in-depth discussions and partisan bickering at this point, and see where that gets us.

Comments

• I agree with all the changes, to varying degrees. However I would like a second opinion on 16 from somebody who knows the sources. -- Adjwilley (talk) 21:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
• I think Adjwilley has done a good job with this draft. My main complaints regard style and length. For instance, I don't see why the lead has to give a reason for the Smith family's move from Vermont. Upstate New York was populated with folks from New England trying to better their condition. All we need say is that "By 1817, the Smith family had moved to Upstate New York." Likewise, about the Smith family religion, we can just say that the "Smith family held conflicted views about organized religion but accepted the legitimacy of visions and prophecies and engaged in folk religious practices common to their era." Everything being equal, shorter is better, especially in the lead.--John Foxe (talk) 10:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
• I agree with most edits here. Just a few nitpicks related to WP:EGG: I disagree with #15; it's better to spell out the thing being linked to in most cases. In the same vein, it would be better to link the whole phrase "Smith was murdered" rather than just the word "murdered" to make it more apparent where that link is going (although this is an existing issue in the current article, not introduced by your edits). I think we should consider StormRider's additions as well, specifically, "recover the land stolen from church members" and "they were expelled by threat of extermination", which cast a little more light on these relatively dire situations. ...comments? ~BFizz 18:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
• @Foxe, If I understand correctly, your suggested wording would drop the Second Great Awakening link. Are you suggesting it should read: Smith was born in Sharon, Vermont, the fifth child of Joseph Smith, Sr. and Lucy Mack Smith. By 1817, Smith's family had moved to western New York. The Smith family held conflicted views about organized religion but accepted the legitimacy of visions and prophecies and engaged in folk religious practices common to their era. In fact, Smith himself was paid to search for buried treasure with a seer stone? I ask, partly because I think it's important to convey the nature of the religious atmosphere and revivalism Smith was surrounded by. Also, I don't think the reason they moved from Vermont is all that important, other than it implied that the family was of the farming/working class. @BFizz, point taken on #15, and the "murdered" link. I'm leaning against the "stolen from church members" and "by threat of extermination" additions, because I don't want to go out of my way to vilify anybody - not Smith, and not the Missourians. -- Adjwilley (talk) 23:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I do like your purposed lead without the Second Great Awakening reference. Mentioning it in the body is fine, but neither Vogel nor Quinn, who cover Smith's youth in detail, regard the Second Great Awakening as an important influence. The magical practices and universalism of Joseph Smith, Sr. can even be interpreted (as his brother Jesse did interpret them) as opposition to mainline Protestant faith.

As for the Mormons and the Missourians, a pox on both their houses; the whole business is an example of frontiersmen behaving badly. --John Foxe (talk) 11:54, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I haven't read Vogel or Quinn, but my understanding is those books are focusing on his magical practices. The few sources I own do mention the Second Great Awakening, and the revivalist atmosphere. Bushman talks about it in the two books I have by him; and Shipps (though admittedly focusing on the religious aspect of Smith's history) goes into even greater detail (pages 2-21, specifically pages 8-19). In his words, "Western New York was the scene of the most intesne religious concern that the country has ever seen, before or since."

On a more general note, I think there are at least three ways of explaining Smith's success: 1) he was chosen by God, 2) he had exceptional DNA, or 3) he had the right Environment. (Or, a combination of the above). Among believers, he is seen as being chosen by God, and he is the product of his revelations. Others look at the man - he was charismatic and inventive, and had a knack for leadership. The third focuses on the environment, and probably isn't the most common a way of looking at things, but I think it definitely has merit. If you think about it, Smith probably would not have been able to do what he did if he had been born 100 years earlier or later. He had to have the right environment. As Malcolm Gladwell said, "It's not enough to ask what successful people are like...It is only by asking where they are from that we can unravel the logic behind who succeeds and who doesn't." Smith was from a community, and family, that were literally a microcosm of the Second Great Awakening.

That said, how would you feel about a compromise that leaves out the reason they left Vermont, but keeps in the SGA and religious atmosphere? For example: Smith was born in Sharon, Vermont, the fifth child of Joseph Smith, Sr. and Lucy Mack Smith. By 1817, Smith's family had moved to western New York, the scene of much religious excitement associated with the Second Great Awakening. The Smith family held conflicted views on organized religion; however, they were privately religious, accepting of things like visions and prophecies, and engaging in various folk religious practices common to the era. For example, Smith himself was paid to search for buried treasure with a seer stone. It is longer than your proposed wording, but shorter than the wording I initially proposed. -- Adjwilley (talk) 19:05, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

How about the following? "Smith was born in Sharon, Vermont, the fifth child of Joseph Smith, Sr. and Lucy Mack Smith. By 1817, Smith's family had moved to the "burned-over district" of western New York, an area repeatedly swept by religious revivals during the Second Great Awakening. The Smith family held conflicted views about organized religion, but they believed in visions and prophecies and engaged in folk religious practices typical of the era. As a teenager, Smith himself was paid to search for buried treasure with a seer stone."

Although "Jan" could be a male or female name, Jan Shipps is a soft spoken but spunky lady.--John Foxe (talk) 19:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

How embarrassing! her words... Sorry. As for the wording, I could definitely live with that, with one minor change. Instead of "As a teenager" I would like "For example." I want the sentence to tie into the paragraph, and not stick out. "For example", ties the seer stone to the folk religious practices in the previous sentence. "As a teenager" disconnects the sentence from the paragraph. One possible benefit of tying it in might be that it would get deleted less often, though I wouldn't get my hopes up too much on that one. -- Adjwilley (talk) 20:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with eliminating "as a teenager" and inserting "for example." I think citing the seer stone business to Bushman might help with the deletion problem. At least it's worth a shot.--John Foxe (talk) 14:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and let's use "divergent" rather than the trendy "conflicted."--John Foxe (talk) 14:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I will use divergent. I'd like to try it for two weeks or so without the citation, just to see what happens. I've also thought about putting an hidden note saying that the statement is supported by numerous sources. If that doesn't work, I doubt the citation will.

About the events leading to Smith's death...the current section on "Death" begins with the sentence, "Smith and his brother Hyrum were held in Carthage Jail on charges of treason." In the previous paragraph, Smith was Mayor of Nauvoo, commander of the militia, running for President, king, etc. There is no explanation for how he got from the mayor's office to Carthage jail. (I am assuming it was deleted in the past.) Additionally, the Expositer story is given two entire sentences in the Lead, but zero sentences in the section on Smith's death. The point is, I really don't think the detail is unnecessary. I probably could have been more concise, so feel free to prune if you think it's too wordy. -- Adjwilley (talk) 15:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

You're right. Quite a bit of material has been deleted. Let me see if I can figure out where that went.--John Foxe (talk) 16:57, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I've now re-added three paragraphs from earlier versions of the article. These were removed by an IP in November 2010 during an edit war. I never even noticed.--John Foxe (talk) 18:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the jab about "unnecessary details" in the edit history, but I couldn't help myself for the irony. I do think those paragraphs could be pruned down a bit (for example the burning of temple garments is completely unnecessary, and I don't remember Bushman even mentioning it) but I don't have time to make the changes myself. Speaking of changes, I think I'll make the proposed changes to the lead now. If anybody has issues that have not been mentioned yet, they can be discussed and applied as they come up. -- Adjwilley (talk) 19:29, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

You're right about pruning that "Death" section. We can do that; and the "temple garments" sentence will the first thing to go. I've tweaked the lead for style. I don't think I've changed anything substantial except for substituting the first paragraph that we worked on together.--John Foxe (talk) 20:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that; I had accidentally grabbed the wrong version. I like the tweaks too. -- Adjwilley (talk) 22:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Just a comment about the recent edits. It is more accurate to say that the Angel directed him to the plates in "visions" (plural), however I have a problem now with the bit about Smith translating the plates with his seer stone. If I understand correctly, Smith never explained how he translated, other than saying it was by the power of God. Also, he started out using the Urim and Thumum, and finished using the seer stone. Anyway, my opinion is that the translation process is one of the more complicated and controversial aspects, and is not well understood, and as such, trying to go into sufficient detail in the Lead would be hard to do right. -- Adjwilley (talk) 15:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Adjwilley that there's no reason to drag in the translation process here, although I'd certainly be amenable to considering COgden's opinion.--John Foxe (talk) 15:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

From the lead: "...saying he had been chosen by God to restore the early Christian faith. " I don't think he was restoring faith. From what I gathered he was restoring governance, restoring The Church, restoring the original beliefs. How about "... saying he had been chosen by God to restore the Church as Jesus had established it." Eh? Too much?? How about just "...saying he had been chosen by God to restore the original Christian church." Padillah (talk) 16:06, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree.--John Foxe (talk) 17:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

It is well established by historians, both Mormon and non-Mormon, that Smith primarily translated with his black seer stone. Smith did describe his translation process to several witnesses such as Joseph Knight, Martin Harris, and some of the Whitmers. They and others also saw him do it (though of course they did not see the mystical lights in the reflections of the stone that Smith saw, given that the stone was in a hat with Smith's face over it). This is not a controversial issue. I also think the translation method is important to note in the lead, because we don't want to leave the impression that Smith was a linguist who literally translated the plates in the scholarly sense. It is important (both to scholars and to Smith himself) that the translation process was mystical, rather than academic. It also ties in his prior work as a stone seer in the prior sentence, which otherwise seems seems to have no purpose.

As to Padillah's suggestion about restoration, I agree. COGDEN 19:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Although anyone who saw Smith's process of dictating text said he used a stone in a hat, I disagree that this fact needs to be mentioned in the lede. I think the phrase "he published as the Book of Mormon what he said was an English translation of these plates" gives enough warning to the reader about Smith's putative translation skills. For that matter, we're not suggesting that he had any mystical skills either. Unalloyed imposture remains a possible interpretation.--John Foxe (talk) 00:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I think there is a decent argument that the translation process is too complicated for an adequate treatment in the Lead, but I also see a potential problem with trying to tie it to his work with the seer stone in the previous paragraph.

I think that for Smith, or at least his family and followers, there was a disconnect between his "glass looking" and his "translating" role as a seer. Both practices were in the realm of supernatural, however, he viewed his work as a "seer" as religious, while searching for "filthy lucre" was at best a misuse of God's power, at worst, fraudulent. On the other hand, there are plenty of people who understandably see a strong connection between the two.

I can't claim to know what our many IP friends are thinking when the delete the "seer stone" phrase, but I think part of it may be a gut reaction of "That has nothing to do with his role as a prophet!" Of course, for others, it has everything to do with his role as a prophet. Both are valid points of view, though on opposite sides of the spectrum. We are trying for NPOV – a tricky task, especially here. If we go out of our way to establish a connection between the treasure hunting and translating, we are pushing a point of view; some readers will rejoice, others will feel attacked. The same argument goes for eliminating any connection at all.

I'm not sure what the proverbial "middle road" is. It could take the form of only mentioning one "seer stone" in the lead – either for translating or treasure seeking, and then letting the body of the article tell the whole story. Or we could use different terms that imply the separation that Smith seemed to feel (example: call it scrying in the treasure paragraph, and using a seer stone for the translation.) There may be even better ways to go about it that I haven't thought of, but these are something to think about. P.S. I concur with Foxe's post, which I didn't read until after I had written my response. -- Adjwilley (talk) 00:55, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

There developed at some point (in the 1830s) a disconnect between Smith's seership as it was applied to financial, as opposed to religious, purposes, but there is no evidence that disconnect was contemporary to the translation of the Book of Mormon. Martin Harris, for example, was all the more convinced that Smith had the plates, and was translating them, because Smith was so skilled with the stone at finding hidden items he'd never seen. Also, even Smith himself admits that his initial interest in the plates was for financial gain. Everybody but Mormon apologists (and some apologists as well) agrees that the finding and translation of the Book of Mormon was related (if not a direct continuation of) his other seer stone activities.

I think the article is significantly better if it at least alludes to how he produced the translation, because seer stones (including the U&T) were a very significant part of his early theology, and are discussed hand-in-hand with the plates in early documents. The stone, and Smith's use of it, was the greatest source of charisma within the earliest Mormonism. But if nobody else agrees, this is more an issue of style rather than substance, so not something to really fight over. COGDEN 22:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll back out of this one, since I'm not as familiar with as many sources as you are. I didn't mean to say the two weren't related at all. -- Adjwilley (talk) 23:09, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing on Joseph Smith translating is misleading.

The picture (josephsmithtranslating.jpg) of Joseph Smith translating has been brought up before and I am not wanting to take that one up again. I do have a concern that it is sourced with John Foxe being the author. First of all John Foxe is an alias (and also a historically significant individual). Even if that is acceptable protocol, John mentioned earlier that he commissioned the picture and so he can not be attributed as the author, merely the copyright holder. How do we fix this one in keeping with Wiki policy?--Canadiandy talk 06:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Smith's pistol

Eustress replaced a photograph of the pistol that Joseph Smith used on the day of his assassination with a much later painting by a LDS non-observer. I reverted. I believe it's more important to emphasize to the casual reader that Smith had a gun at the ready and fired at his attackers. Smith did not accept his martyrdom meekly but tried to kill those who came to murder him. The photograph of the gun makes that clear.--John Foxe (talk) 13:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I think either would be fine, but I lean towards the painting. The painting does present a less specific image and probably reflects the general description of the section a bit better. I'm not sure why WP needs to emphasize any particular aspect of the killing beyond what sources generally reflect. The overall narrative of the battle/killings at the jail seem to be the central point, rather than who used what weapons and when. Heck, both could be used. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

In D&C 135:4, John Taylor reports that when Smith gave himself up to go Carthage, he said, "I am going like a lamb to the slaughter." The official LDS comment on his martyrdom plays on this theme as well. It does not mention that he fired a pistol at his attackers, thereby indicating that he did not intend to lay down his life willingly. To eliminate the photo of the pistol would be to play down an aspect of the story that the LDS Church also wishes to play down. (LDS drawings and paintings never show Smith with pistol drawn.) But I have no problem with including the painting so long as the pistol stays.--John Foxe (talk) 00:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with the pistol and painting as well. I believe an earlier version of the article had 3 pictures under "Death" so I think 2 is just dandy. On an unrelated note, I personally don't see a huge conflict with "going like a lamb" and firing at the mobbers who killed his brother, but that's just me. Others may see it differently. -- Adjwilley (talk) 00:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

To respond to John—I'm just not sure that ensuring that a picture of the gun remains in the general article about Joseph Smith is the appropriate way to ensure that the complete story is told. It shouldn't be "played down", but nor does it need to be "played up" by Wikipedia independently. Including the gun photo could be seen as playing up a particular angle or emphasizing certain details over others. Like Adjwilley, I kind of think the entire issue is a bit overblown by opponents of Smith. (It kind of reeks of kicking someone while they are outnumbered/down. And has anyone actually taken a lamb to the slaughter? I have, and believe me—there is more than enough struggling and kicking involved. :) ) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Smith was a victim, but he was not an innocent victim. The "particular angle" played up by the photo of the pistol is the information that Smith wanted to kill his attackers rather than die a martyr—information the LDS Church wants to hide. In context, Smith attempting to unload his pepper box at the mob is not a "detail," it strikes at the heart of what Smith was about.--John Foxe (talk) 01:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I dunno, it all seems a bit POV-y, as I suggested above. It shouldn't be played down, but it also doesn't need to be played up. I think the reliable sources are best left to decide what Smith was all about, rather than us. From what I've seen, they tend to mention that he was armed and that he shot an attacker in the face and another couple of attackers, but these facts are generally not focused on by the sources as a means of demonstrating the "heart of what Smith was about". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Foxe, it looks like your sockpuppet took a picture of the gun at the Museum of Church Art and History in Salt Lake City, so I don't understand why you'd say "the LDS Church wants to hide" this information when they are displaying the pistol. Displaying both images may be the most neutral way to show the event. 72Dino (talk) 02:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed that the photo of the pistol doesn't appear in the article Death of Joseph Smith. That kind of surprised me, since it seems like the kind of detail that would ideal to set out in that article. That's kind of the purpose of having a special article about the death—so we don't have to cover every detail about the incident in the bio article. In that article there are also alternate images of the death incident; the painting currently used is a tad hagiographic, what with the light streaming down from heaven, etc. Maybe there's a better one we could choose. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The death article seems more appropriate for the photo than the Life of Joseph Smith from 1839 to 1844 article which also contains the image. Maybe move it from there to the Death of Joseph Smith article? 72Dino (talk) 03:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The LDS Church likes to portray Joseph Smith as a willing martyr. Although the Church history museum displays the pistol, photographs of it are never used in LDS promotional material nor is Joseph Smith ever shown with a pistol in his hand. After all, what sort of martyrs have loaded guns at the ready?

Although I don't mind the inclusion of the Christensen painting, it doesn't provide any useful information about Smith's death. In fact, if I were to try to interpret that painting cold, I'd say it portrays God killing Smith with a bolt of light.--John Foxe (talk) 14:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I too feel the painting better reflects the section's contents, but I'm also fine with including both images. —Eustress ^talk 22:58, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

The difference between a present and past tense

An IP has recently "improved" the lede by implying that Smith's followers used to consider him a prophet. Someone please fix this inanity.--John Foxe (talk) 20:04, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

So far 2 people like the new lede and only one (John) does not. Looks like you are outnumbered John. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.169.162.18 (talk) 20:58, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

+1 for the new lede Crazy like a foxe (talk) 21:26, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Just a note...I think the previous version was slightly better than the current, but I don't like either one very much. I've never been a fan of the laundry list way in which it rattles off the various roles. Also, I think the username "Crazy like a foxe" is inappropriate, and not conducive to us working together. -- Adjwilley (talk) 22:00, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Legal Disclaimer: All characters appearing in my username are fictitious. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental. Crazy like a foxe (talk) 22:33, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

At this moment the sentence reads: "Smith was a theocrat, city planner, military leader, political theorist, polygamist. Joseph Smith is regarded by his followers to be a Prophet of God." Who will be the first to recognize and correct the grammatical error?--John Foxe (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Not quite sure of the error. Should it be "and he is regarded?" What is the rule? Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 23:00, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, the lack of parallelism is pretty blatant. But depicting "city planner" and "prophet" (more accurately, "founder of a religion") as equal claims to fame ought to qualify as a non-grammatical error. - Grammarcy Park (talk) 23:07, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Good to know that three people could spot that grammatical error.--John Foxe (talk) 19:07, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

New first paragraph of lead?

I’ve been thinking a lot about the first paragraph in the lead, especially the laundry list sentence ending with "polygamist." I read the Manual of Style on WP:OPENPARAGRAPH as well as the leads of several A-rated biographical articles and biographies of some religious founders such as Muhammad, Abraham, and Moses. Based on what I read, I think it is important to remember that the first paragraph is to establish the name, time period, and location of the person (we’re good there) as well as what the person did and why the person is significant. Additionally, what is considered significant is determined by reliable sources, not people’s personal opinions. With that in mind, I went to the most comprehensive source I knew (Bushman) and read the preface, thinking that if anything was notable enough for the Lead, it would certainly be in the preface. After a nod to past works on Smith, Bushman candidly states that a consensus would never be reached on Smith's character and achievements, and says he (Bushman) would try to paint a complete picture of the man, imperfections included. Then, Bushman writes a couple of paragraphs outlining the major things Smith did and was. Here are the notable things Smith did (according to Bushman's preface):

• Founded a church, creating a religious culture that survived his death.
• Published the Book of Mormon
• Built cities and temples
• Attracted thousands of followers

What he was

• Was the closest America had come to producing a biblical-style prophet
• Was not an exemplar of virtue (hence the rough stone) but was warm and affectionate.

Things that are mentioned in our current first paragraph that Bushman doesn't mention are:

• theocrat
• military leader
• political theorist
• polygamist (Note: plural marriage was mentioned in the "warm and affectionate" paragraph, saying that it drove a wedge between him and Emma, which caused him great sorrow.)

My opinion is that these four things can be removed by the laundry list and be replaced by more notable things Smith did that Bushman mentioned. I am also curious as to what other sources (eg. Brodie) say in their prefaces. How do they establish Smith as being notable enough to write a book about him? Was it his time as a military leader and his plural wives, or was it writing "scripture" and founding a church?

One last note about the polygamy... I understand there has been a good deal of controversy about including it in the lead, and I think it should be included in the 5th paragraph (Nauvoo, death). After my readings, though, I don't believe it belongs in the first paragraph. One guideline from the MOS that struck me was that "sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening [paragraph] unless it is relevant to the subject's notability." Of course, they are speaking mainly of sexual orientation; however, I think that "sexuality" is broad enough to include polygamy.

In conclusion, I propose that unless it can be established by reliable sources that theocrat, military leader, political theorist and polygamist are things Smith was most notable for, (and not just important influences in his life) that we drop them from the first paragraph. A new first paragraph might look something like this:

Joseph Smith, Jr. (December 23, 1805 – June 27, 1844) was an American religious leader and the founder of the Latter Day Saint movement. During his lifetime, he published the Book of Mormon, built cities and temples, and attracted thousands of followers. Though his character and achievements are widely debated, he is viewed by followers as a latter-day prophet.

-- Adjwilley (talk) 01:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Let's just drop both the laundry list and your substitution. Smith was a lousy city planner (he put Nauvoo in a swamp) and never truly finished a temple. His ability to attract followers is simply part of founding a new religion—if no one had been attracted to Mormonism, the religion wouldn't have survived. I dislike mention of the word "debated" and "debatable" in this or any other lead. Just say his followers consider him a prophet; it's understood that non-believers don't believe.

In other words, I think the lead should say

Joseph Smith, Jr. (December 23, 1805 – June 27, 1844) was an American religious leader and the founder of the Latter Day Saint movement. He is regarded by his followers as a prophet of God.

As I've said many times in the past, cutting rather than adding is almost always a better strategy for reaching consensus.--John Foxe (talk) 14:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I've no problem with that as a lead sentence. And Foxe? Stephen King says the same thing about writing a novel. Write first, then cut. Only cut. Padillah (talk) 14:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that as a tool for reaching consensus, cutting makes a great sledgehammer; if you use it too often, though, you can end up with a rough and broken article. I think in our case, sticking closely to WP guidelines and reliable sources could also result in consensus. For instance, focusing on what Smith did, rather than what he was, would solve a lot of problems. I'd prefer to save cutting as a last resort.

I agree about the "debated." Perhaps we could substitute, "While it is unlikely there will ever be consensus on Smith's character and achievements..." gently letting readers know they are about to read a neutral article about a controversial subject. -- Adjwilley (talk) 16:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

In terms of the WP guidelines for writing leads, we're already over the word limit by a good paragraph. (I think this problem got mentioned the last time COgden nominated it as a good article.)

Smith's polygamy and introduction of polygamy to Mormonism are the most important aspects of his career except for his founding of the Church, so the mention of polygamy needs to stay where it is unless the first paragraph of the lead is dramatically shortened.

I also oppose suggesting that Smith is "controversial," another word I dislike seeing in Wikipedia articles. If you've ever followed edit wars here about topics that appear arcane to us normal people, you'll realize that virtually everything on Wikipedia has the possibility of becoming controversial.

Padillah, I'm with Stephen King: I write, then I cut, and I keep cutting unless something becomes unclear in the cutting process. I always try to get as much meaning as possible into as few words as possible.--John Foxe (talk) 18:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm certainly not qualified to argue with Steven King about writing, and I share your concern for lead length. Before pulling out the scissors, though, I'd really like to write a good first paragraph.

Quoting WP:Lead, The Lead "should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." My sentence acknowledges the controversy without actually using the word "controversial." If you have very strong feelings against this, I can drop the phrase or the sentence.

You have stated, "Smith's polygamy and introduction of polygamy to Mormonism are the most important aspects of his career except for his founding of the Church." Is there a prominent-reliable source that says that, or is this your point of view?

For reference, here is the current version I'm working with:

Joseph Smith, Jr. (December 23, 1805 – June 27, 1844) was an American religious leader and the founder of the Latter Day Saint movement. During his lifetime, he published the Book of Mormon, built cities and temples, and gathered thousands of followers. Though it is unlikely there will ever be consensus on Smith's character and achievements, he is viewed by followers as a latter-day prophet.

-- Adjwilley (talk) 19:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Smith started building a couple of temples. The first remained unpaid for, the second unfinished. (Brigham Young was a much better organizer.) Smith built no cities. Nauvoo was hardly a town, and Smith managed to put his people where they were killed by malaria. Smith did attract many followers, but that fact is inherent in his having founding a successful new religion, as is his publication of the Book of Mormon. I oppose any statement that suggests Smith's career is controversial; that phrase is just extra words.

Polygamy is far more important to Smith's story than his temples or cities. As Bushman says, "Nothing Joseph had done put the Church and his own reputation in greater jeopardy." (490) My suggestion is to cut the laundry list entirely or leave polygamy where it is.

The lead actually does the things that the guidelines say it should: "define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." It just doesn't do those things in the first paragraph.--John Foxe (talk) 21:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll drop the "controversial" bit. As for the others, WP:OPENPARAGRAPH explicitly states that the first paragraph should say "What the person did." The language I used ("built cities and temples" etc.) is not mine, but Bushman's. It comes straight out of the Preface.

The polygamy statement (from Bushman's section titled "Emma and Joseph") says that it put the church and his reputation in jeopardy, and was the most difficult trial of 1843. It says nothing about polygamy being the second most important aspect of Smith's career. In fact, the next paragraph says Smith distinguished between regular Polygamy and Celestial Marriage, which, if anything, makes it a little more complicated to simply state that he was a polygamist. -- Adjwilley (talk) 22:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Although I believe the introduction of religious polygamy to America to be the most important thing Joseph Smith did besides found the Latter Day Saint movement—the Ostlings devote a whole chapter to it—I was only making the point that Smith's introduction of polygamy was more important than anything having to do with temples or cities. And Smith was a polygamist in any vocabulary except that of the LDS Church. (What "cities" plural? Bushman is exaggerating. You can call a large number of rude cabins a city because a lot of people lived there—along with the mosquitoes—but there was no planning that Smith or anyone else ought to have taken pride in.)

What Smith did was found the Latter Day Saint movement. That's it. Nothing else is worth mentioning unless his introduction of religious polygamy into the United States is also included. And polygamy's easily excluded (along with "theocrat") if you'll just forget about trying to add the temples, cities, and the Book of Mormon. Our differences disappear if you'll cut instead of trying to add.--John Foxe (talk) 23:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Correction: Smith didn't introduce religious polygamy into the United States, (see Jacob Cochran for a counterexample) and Young is the one who mainstreamed it in the church. Unfortunately I'm short on time today, so I'll sleep on this tonight and respond to your other concerns tomorrow evening if I can. Thank you for your willingness to compromise. -- Adjwilley (talk) 01:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Right. Forgot about Cochran and his spiritual wifery—though I bet Joseph would have complained that Cochran's temporary arrangements were the very opposite of what he intended.--John Foxe (talk) 01:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't really like the existing laundry list, either. I think it is sufficient just to say he was "the founder and principal prophet of the Latter Day Saint movement, an American religion based on the teachings of the Bible and additional sacred Latter Day Saint texts." Then I think we need to prune the rest of the lead, which should only have 3-4 paragraphs. COGDEN 04:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Break

I must apologize for an earlier misunderstanding. I thought we were only addressing the lead sentence, not the entire lead paragraph. All due respect to Adjwilley, I think a better example article to use (and this just shows the differences in opinion about who JSJ was) is the GA Martin Luther. This is at least a Good Article and is about an historical, theological, real figure. That article has, not so much a laundry list, but a step-by-step walk-through of the major turning points of his life.Something for Joseph Smith might look like this:

Joseph Smith, Jr. (December 23, 1805 – June 27, 1844) was an American religious leader and the founder of the Latter Day Saint movement. In 1830 he published the Book of Mormon and began organizing the Church of Christ. By 1838 he and a large congregation had moved to northern Missouri where rising fears from the local settlers led to the 1838 Mormon War. In the summer of 1844 an article in the Nauvoo Expositor criticizing Smith's practice of polygamy, led to his arrest and eventual martyrdom.

Then the rest of the lead can add slight detail and the body can add significant detail. Please keep in mind, as I have said before, I am REALLY bad at writing copy :). But that's approximately what I think it should look like. Padillah (talk) 12:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

My original intent was to modify the laundry list sentence, substituting actions (publishing, building, attracting) for nouns (theocrat, city planner, polygamist, etc). I think the focus changed somewhere during the discussion.

After some reflection, I've decided that I could live with both Foxe's and COgden's suggestions, though I really prefer Padillah's structure. (And I like the Luther lead too.) What if we started with Foxe's suggestion (essentially cutting the laundry list) and then work from there? The first paragraph would only be 2 sentences long, which seems overly short to me, but I suppose we could revisit it from time to time, as the rest of the lead is being trimmed. How does that sound to everybody? -- Adjwilley (talk) 00:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Wow! 48hours of scrutiny followed by 5 days of nothing. Does no one have anything to progress the discussion? This is quite uncharacteristic of this talk page. ;) Padillah (talk) 14:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I was kind of enjoying the pause, and I'm happy to let it go on unless others feel a need to begin pruning immediately. I procured a copy of Brodie's book the other day, because I'd like to at least have a good idea of what the two most prominent biographers say before engaging in a discussion on which parts to cut from the lead. -- Adjwilley (talk) 23:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Both of you can take some of the credit for the recent hiatus in mean spirited editing. Good on ya, mates!--John Foxe (talk) 01:22, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Early life of Joseph Smith

I just came to this article looking for help with a paper on Joseph Smith, and thought something about the intro was a little off too- upon seeing this discussion I just thought I'd try to break the stalemate and suggest using other featured articles as templates. I found the featured Early life of Joseph Smith article and found the intro much more practical and succinct than the current Joseph Smith intro. For example, even though that article focuses on Smith's early life, it only mentions his belief in folk religion, whereas this article, presumably more broad and all encompassing of his life, goes into even further detail in this part of his life. ("he was paid to use a seer stone...") This example happened to be, I guess, "pro-Mormon" but it just happened to be the first discrepancy to stick out to me. Another featured article on a religious figure Huldrych Zwingli shows another practical and succinct intro that suggests the intro to this article is just too long. I think this intro could be fixed in no time if both "sides" recognize that there are simply details that need to be taken out of the intro, whether "good" ones or "bad" ones, and embrace BPOV. violetshadow 19:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the lead to this article is too long, but after looking at the Zwingli lead, I can't see any lessons for us there.

You're right that the lead of Early life of Joseph Smith is deficient in not mentioning his magical practices. I've both reduced the wordiness and added the information about the seer stone to that article to bring it more in line with this one.--John Foxe (talk) 22:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

It's strange when a new, thoughtful voice at this page says "article A has a good intro and B's is a little off" and you say, "You're right, A's intro is deficient. I'll change it to be more like B's." Am I missing a bit of humorous tone or something that might close the cognitive gap here? I'd hate for VioletShadow to think their opinion was being blown off deliberately. alanyst 22:50, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Yep, humorous tone. I didn't think my changes would stick for long (it took seven minutes before they were reverted), but I do think the lead of Early life of Joseph Smith is both wordy and reflective only of LDS thought. So it's definitely unbalanced; and I appreciate violetshadow bringing it to our attention.

Unless it can be rewritten, its GA status should be withdrawn. Its literary style is abysmal. My comments on its talk page are the first substantive suggestions in a couple years—but then that article receives only about 50 visits per day compared with 1500 here.

Obviously, violetshadow doesn't appreciate that Smith's occult activities are no incidental detail but, to the non-believer at least, the very core of what the man was about.--John Foxe (talk) 23:52, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The lead of "Early Life" does need to be rewritten, although I do agree it is better than the lead currently in this article--mainly because the lead here is way too long and needs trimming. Something like the Zwingli article is good, though the contents of the Zwingli article are much different than this article. The lead is supposed to reflect the contents of the article, and the "Early Life" article contains an entire section about Smith's career in magic prior to his prophetic turn. But we can discuss that article on its own talk page. COGDEN 00:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

@John Foxe: You represent the invested skeptic, a minority subset of the very broad non-believer population. It's a hasty generalization to project your minority view on a population that holds no identifiable views beyond the characteristic one of non-belief. alanyst 00:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC) Left-handed people get really bothered by that particular fallacy. ;-)

As a featured article, Early life of Joseph Smith is to provide a template for this article, not the other way around. And since your attempts at adding the detail were reverted, it suggests it does not belong in a featured article into. The idea of whether or not I appreciate his occult practices is irrelevant and untrue- what is important is that the example of the seer stone is a subset, or detail, under the broader umbrella of "folk religious practices" which can be removed to make the intro shorter, and the article a featured article. Since we all agree it's too long and Foxe you seem to be the most particular about what we remove, why don't you suggest what we remove and we can move from there? violetshadow 01:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

@VioletShadow; Simply because the "Early Life..." article at one time achieved FA status doesn't mean it still deserves it nor does it mean the editors that got it to that status are still with the article. Just because someone reverts a change doesn't mean that change should be reverted. It could mean that person is biased and has every intention of reverting anything they don't agree with.

As far as providing a template for this article, yes, in form and context, but not content. It is, by its very existence, a different subject than the one presented here. An argument could be made that the detail of the seer stones belongs in this article due to its impact rather than the "Early Life..." article due to its level of detail. We need to handle the content of each article as stand-alone. We can't take the viewpoint that we don't need to mention something here because it's mentioned elsewhere. If a subject is relevant to this article then it should be mentioned here, regardless of how many times it's mentioned elsewhere.

@alanyst; dis-interest is not the same as dis-belief. You may not agree with Foxe but that doesn't diminish his viewpoint. You would be committing the same injustice you are accusing Foxe of to simply relegate him and those like him to the sidelines of this article.

For all involved, this discussion is much better suited to the "Early Life..." talk page (and has, in fact, already begun there.) Thank you for pointing out the discrepancy VioletShadow, let's see if we can rectify it on both sides. Padillah (talk) 14:37, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

@Padillah: You misread my intentions, which is my fault for not being more careful in conveying them. Foxe's viewpoint is a perfectly legitimate expression of an invested skeptic. That viewpoint deserves the same degree of respect as the LDS viewpoint; no more, no less. My remark above was to rebut the presumption that Foxe's viewpoint represents all non-believers (whether disinterested, disbelieving, disaffected, disquisitive, or disposed toward the believing viewpoint yet not wholly persuaded). I object to that presumption because it implies that the skeptical viewpoint equates to the majority viewpoint and hence is to be privileged in Wikipedia articles above alternate viewpoints. "Detail X is very important to my viewpoint. I am a non-believer, as are most editors and readers. Therefore detail X must be in the lead because non-believers find it very important." There may be good arguments for including detail X, but this is not one. Anyhow, I agree with the general sentiment of moving forward with discussion at the Early Life article and I apologize for sidetracking the discussion here. alanyst 15:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for misunderstanding. And I whole-heartedly agree that no one's argument for inclusion should be "because I think it's important". Even importance should be objective. Padillah (talk) 17:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Objectively, I think there are a lot of reasons to mention seer stones, or more generally magic, in the lead. First, all the biographies and books about Smith written for a general audience prominently feature this element of magic. The story of Smith's early life is incomplete without mentioning Smith's early "gift" of seership. Second, Smith's use of seer stones to find treasure is a precursor to his use of seer stones to translate the Book of Mormon. Thus, Magic is an important part of the story of how he became the Mormon prophet. I'm not saying, mind you, that this element of magic should dominate the brief discussion of his early life in the lead. In the lead, we need to hit it and move on, because we also have to briefly mention his religious background, family situation, geography, and the visions of Moroni. COGDEN 22:46, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Evidence refutes Brodie, again.

I'm not getting into this discussion, but I thought most would be interested in the article at http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700150651/DNA-solves-a-Joseph-Smith-mystery.html . It provides DNA support for the fact that not only has there been no DNA evidence to connect Joseph Smith to having any children except through Emma, but it actually proves that 4 who have been implied as his offspring to other wives are not his descendants. I see no point in discussing it as I already know where the protectors of this article stand on this one. Juat an FYI.--Canadiandy talk 17:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Not sure where you're going with that. We already say that "As of 2011, DNA testing had provided no evidence that Smith had fathered any children by women other than Emma." Are you suggesting a change of wording to reflect that 4 "offspring" claims were refuted? ...comments? ~BFizz 19:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure. My real point stems from the tone of the article that Joseph Smith was a polygamist in the traditional sense. The term 'dynastic' has been dismissed by some, but I think this suggests at least a qualifier when identifying that he was "a polygamist." The test of time continues to reveal Joseph Smith is far from the person his critics (some actively editing here)have painted him to be. But I'm not going to be taking on this one. Thanks for your interest though, BFizz.--Canadiandy talk 22:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Am I missing a definition? Polygamy is about being married to more than one person, not the number of offspring you've fathered. How do the offspring figure into this? Padillah (talk) 13:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

A quick search through LDS-Church owned familysearch.org or their IGI will show that there are biological descendants of Joseph Smith not from Emma Hale Smith. The LDS Church makes no effort to hide this, it's available and in plain sight. The insistence that he didn't father children with other women is odd given the lack of worry about how many children other LDS leaders fathered with multiple women. 174.107.232.52 (talk) 20:04, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

User 174.107.232.52 you are making a very flawed error in your position; the LDS Church does not edit the Family History contributions of individuals. This is not because they believe this information to be true, it is because they are ethical in treating the contributions of LDS and non-LDS individuals. And nobody is insisting Joseph never fathered children with other women, but the evidence that exists that claims he did is at best debatable. There is to date not one single case in which DNA has proven any individual to be a descendant of Joseph through another wife. Given the mathematical likelihood of exponential progeny this seems absurdly unlikely. I do not doubt this can be a complex matter and see how your conclusion might be reached, but in light of the best evidence it is problematic at best. Respectfully, your logic does not follow. What is known is that historically there were individuals who claimed Joseph Smith was married to other women than Emma. And it is also known that Joseph Smith is the ancestor of thousands of individuals through Emma. I have not seen a single study which proves through DNA that Joseph fathered any children except with Emma to whom he was married. See http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2008_Joseph_Smith_DNA_Revealed.html . I would not be surprised to learn that Joseph was involved in multiple dynastic marriages, but given the lack of DNA evidence, I am not convinced by those who want to portray Joseph as an unfaithful husband to Emma. In a day of scientific advances, I look forward to what the hard evidence presents. I'd rather patiently await the truth than rush to an incorrect and illogical conclusion. As they say, time is on the side of truth.--Canadiandy talk 03:48, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Is there a source not bankrolled by the LDS church that is reporting on these claims? FAIR, FARMS and Deseret News shouldn't be considered impartial sources because they are either owned or funded by the LDS church, who has motivation to portray Joseph Smith in a certain light. 128.187.0.183 (talk) 19:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Odd statement for someone using an IP registered to BYU. Should we discount your question simply based on your BYU connection? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 21:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

First, FAIRLDS is not in any way bankrolled by the Church. They clearly state, "FAIR is not owned, controlled by or affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. All research and opinions provided on this site are the sole responsibility of FAIR, and should not be interpreted as official statements of LDS doctrine, belief or practice." Second, my main point is that "There is to date not one single case in which DNA has proven any individual to be a descendant of Joseph through another wife." While it would be impossible to prove there are no such cases, the onus rests on those who disagree to provide evidence or research to the contrary. Does anyone know of a single reliable finding linking Joseph Smith's DNA to an offspring through anyone other than Emma? If not, then my point stands.--Canadiandy talk 00:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

What exactly are we trying to establish by discussing this here? It's well settled that Smith was a polygamist, which is a marriage arrangement. Whether he fathered children through his wives is another issue, but I think it's also settled that to date there is no DNA evidence of any descendants of Joseph Smith who are not also descendants of Emma. Article-wise, I don't think there's anything in dispute here that I can see. I don't think we need to advance pro-apologetic or pro-detractor arguments or proofs here on the talk page unless we're trying to suss something out in the WP article. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:38, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

From my position, I am simply responding to an anonymous post suggesting the Church somehow supported that Joseph had children through plural marriage on the basis it did not correct genealogical records submitted by private contributors. Are we expecting Mormons to stay on the sidelines while their Church is maligned and discriminated against? I hope the discussion hasn't come to that. My present aim here is not to "advance pro-apologetic arguments," it is to simply correct false assumption.--Canadiandy talk 03:48, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's not really the purpose of a WP article's talk page. If such an anonymous post is made, it's best for someone to just make a comment that the purpose of the talk page is to discuss improving the article and is not intended to be a general discussion board about the topic in question. The anonymous post could even be formally removed if it's not relevant to the article's improvement. Then everyone should just move on. So yes, in that respect, in this forum Mormons (as well as everyone else) are expected to "stay on the sidelines". See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#FORUM. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:46, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

You're right. Sorry for getting caught up in the distraction.--Canadiandy talk 05:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Analysis of sources

The recent discussions on trimming the Lead got me thinking about how the process might work. I expect most of the discussion will be centered around which parts to cut, specifically what is Due and Undue, and to what proportion specific subjects are represented in reliable sources.

A problem with basing the discussion on outside sources is that our regular, middle-of-the-road editors probably haven't read the sources, and have to rely on other invested and potentially biased editors who have read the sources.

Word Clouds

I decided to try to analyze the sources in a way that would reduce bias, and then present my findings here. I began with a word cloud analysis on the biographies by Bushman and Brodie (sources here and here) to see which terms appeared most often in those books. I tried to make the following lists by ordering the words from largest to smallest. Read them as you would the ingredients on a cereal box (i.e. enriched wheat flour, sugar, high fructose corn syrup, hydrogenated soybean oil...natural flavors, color, preservatives). I only took the largest terms from each book, and I may be off on the order, as this was just me squinting at font sizes. I'd say that each word could be off by 2-3 spaces, up or down the list. Also note, I have crossed out names of people, which Google word clouds seem to favor.

Bushman: Book of Mormon, Sidney Rigdon, Lyman Wight, revelation, Church, Nephites, Jackson County, plural marriage, Joseph Smith, Missouri, Oliver Cowdery, Kirtland Temple, Joseph Knight, Lamanites, Anti-Mormon, Zion, Priesthood, Kirtland, prophet, Palmyra, Martin Harris, Clay County, Danite, Saint

Brodie: Prophet, Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith, Nauvoo Temple, Book of Abraham, Zion’s Camp, Palmyra, Orson Hyde, Sidney Rigdon, Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, Polygamy, Lyman Wight, Hyrum Smith, Danites, Doctrine and Covenants, Martin Harris, Nephi, Liberty jail, Fannie Alger Plural marriage, Messenger and Advocate, Nauvoo Legion, golden plates

I did a similar analysis on the Joseph Smith article, using a slightly different algorithm (in Google Docs) to see if any words stuck out. Here are the results:

Wikipedia Article: Smith Marriage, Political, Gods, Harris, General, Prophet, Angel, Seer, Stone, Saint, Kingdom, Temple, died, Law (probably combination of person and legal term), County, Saint, Plural, 1842, Revelation, Women, Bennett, York (probably as in "New York"), Young, Godhood, Led

A similar analysis in a non-Google word cloud maker yielded: Smith, Joseph, Church, Saints, Mormon, Nauvoo, New, Missouri, Emma, Mormons, God, plates, polygamy, Book, Latter, day.

Conclusions from Word-cloud analysis

It's hard to draw any conclusions from an analysis with different "black box" algorithms, but no matter the algorithm, the results are still somewhat quantitative (and more importantly, non-biased) in nature.

• One interesting trend I noticed is that in the Google docs Wikipedia word cloud, there seems to be a strange emphasis on the non-religious compared to Brodie and Bushman. You get stuff like "marriage, political, general, seer, stone, kingdom, died, law, county, 1842, etc."
• The Google clouds seem to favor names for some reason, and don't necessarily base the results on absolute number of words.
• "Book of Mormon" made the top-two in both Bushman and Brodie (with the other two being "revelation" and "prophet." "Church" and "Temples" seem to be next in importance. "Polygamy" and "plural marriage" follow, various cities and "Zion" are close behind. Oddly, the way I cut it off "golden plates" came in last place in Brodie, and didn't place in Bushman.

Book Analysis

The word cloud was fun, but was more qualitative than quantitative. So I decided to do my own analysis. I analyzed three books: Brodie, Bushman, and Vogel. I ended up just using the Brodie and Bushman, though, because they give Smith’s full history–birth to death–whereas Vogel stops at Ohio.

In Brodie, I did a page-by-page analysis, assigning blocs of pages to general categories like, “Family history,” “Translation,” “Founding church,” “Danites,” etc. I made up new categories as needed. I did the same thing with Bushman, the major difference being that I assigned entire sections instead of blocs of pages (Bushman has each chapter divided into sections, by topic). I had to add several new categories for Bushman, as he seems to cover several things in depth that Brodie doesn’t. (I ended up with 63 categories.) I did a similar analysis with Vogel, but assigned entire chapters instead of sections.

I then copied the readable text of the Wikipedia article into a Word document, and assigned each clause, sentence, or paragraph into categories. This time, instead of counting pages, I did it line by line, counting how many lines each subject took up in my Word document. For the lead section, I actually broke it up even finer, estimating fractions of lines. (For example, if a sentence took up 1.5 lines, I recorded 1.5 for that category.) I did this because the Lead is so short, that some categories are only represented by a fraction of a sentence.

I integrated all of the results into an excel spreadsheet where I graphed them, and did sort of a statistical analysis on them to flag categories that were over-represented or under-represented in the article. I highly recommend that you look at the spreadsheet which I have uploaded here.

Specific Categories

Based on my analysis of the 63 categories, it would appear that Wikiepedia has too much emphasis on Treasure hunting and Family religion, with too little on family history and the Book of Mormon (compared to the average of Brodie and Bushman). Further on, it shows too much on Missouri, Fanny Aldrich, Missionary work, Priesthood, Doctrine, Emma, and Successors, with too little on the Missouri Expulsion, Book of Abraham, Far West, Bennett, and his Hiding in Nauvoo.

This analysis, however, was not extremely reliable because of the number of specific categories I had. (I had 63.) It was often hard to categorize certain things specifically, for example, Emma and Polygamy were often overlapping, and the many Church categories (Founding Church, Church in Ohio, Church, etc.) were hard to distinguish. Missouri was also hard to separate (Far West, expulsion, Missouri, Zion, etc.)

A sample chart from my spreadsheet

Broad categories

To fix this, I created 16 broad categories, and then sorted the specific categories into those. My broad categories were: Family, Religious Background, Treasure hunting, Book of Mormon, Personal life, Miracles, Revelation/Doctrine, Church, Problems, Kirtland, Missouri, Zion, Nauvoo, Polygamy, Politics, and Death. A simple analysis of that showed too much emphasis on Doctrine, Polygamy, and Politics, with not enough written on Nauvoo, Missouri, Family, and Kirtland.

I also did an analysis of the Lead with the general categories, which showed too much written on Church, Religious Background, Family, Treasure hunting, Personal life, and Politics, with not enough emphasis on Problems, Polygamy, Revelation, Nauvoo, and Book of Mormon.

Bias

I did this numerical analysis in an attempt to eliminate bias. I feel this is more reliable than me reading the books and then telling you what they’re about, because each person who reads could come to different conclusions depending on what they’re looking for. That said, this analysis is not completely bias-free, and I wouldn’t want to present it that way. I may have introduced bias in the grey areas in naming the categories (for example, choosing to create separate categories for Danites and Missouri Mormon War); and choosing where to assign stuff (for example, trying to pick between putting something under Emma or Polygamy). Lumping things together in broader categories should help to eliminate some of these problems, but there is still the problem of naming categories, and assigning what goes where. I tried to build the spreadsheet so that people could understand roughly what I did, and so that they could go in and change numbers around if they so desire. I hope you will experiment with it, check my work, and then let me know if I went wrong somewhere.

References

Comments

Based on my analysis, I have several specific recommendations for the article, and the Lead, but I would like to wait a couple of days so people can look at the spreadsheet and come to their own conclusions. I would be happy if somebody who knew the sources checked my work as well. Please leave comments here with your thoughts. -- Adjwilley (talk) 01:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a valuable analysis, and I think we can learn things from it. Thanks for the hard work, and I'm going to study it further. One initial thought I had, though, is that we need to keep in mind that this article is by nature going to have different secular/religious balance than any book about Joseph Smith. In the books, there are going to be a lot of quotations, which will probably skew things quite a bit toward more religious terms. Also, while the books also have to provide the basic biographical facts about Smith's life, the books have room for a lot more exposition about religious issues. However, for a short encyclopedia article, a larger percentage of the article is naturally going to be spent on telling the secular details about his life. COGDEN 08:23, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Threw her out of the house

The last sentence of the second-to-last paragraph in the section "Life in Ohio" reads, Emma Smith "suspected a relationship and threw Fanny out of the house." with a reference to Ostling.

The problem with the sentence is that it is not reliably sourced. Of the incident, Brodie says, "There is no record of [Emma's] anger except in the dubious gossip of neighbors that crept into print after half a century." (page 182)

Bushman goes further on page 346. He says, "Most of the other stories about Joseph's plural marriage in Kirtland come from one individual without confirmation from a second source. Ann Eliza, for example, included a story of Fanny being ejected by a furious Emma, one of the few scraps of information about her reaction. Ann Eliza could not have been an eyewitness because she was not yet born, but she might have heard the story from her parents, who were close to the Smiths. Are such accounts to be believed? ... Stories like these, all of them from intensely partisan witnesses, must be treated with caution."

Based on Bushman and Brodie's analysis of the story's dubious origins, I recommend that the sentence be stricken. After all, "Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors." -- Adjwilley (talk) 23:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree and have removed the sentence.--John Foxe (talk) 13:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks -- Adjwilley (talk) 17:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the removal.Beefcake6412 (talk) 19:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• Sounds reasonable—I agree too. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Good catch. When it comes to details about Smith's life, it can be difficult to tell at a glance what is gossip and what is proven fact. I heartily applaud your effort in finding quotes from both Brodie and Bushman to substantiate your conclusion. ...comments? ~BFizz 22:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Nice catch Adjwilley. It's looking more and more like I should read these books after all, huh? ;) Padillah (talk) 16:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Recurring Themes

In doing my spreadsheet analysis of the article, a couple things popped out at me. One of those was that I got to see which topics came up where in the article. Some topics were entirely confined to specific sections. Other topics were spread throughout the article. The latter I will call "recurring themes."

In our current article, "Church" could be considered a recurring theme, as it shows up in many of the history sections (church in Ohio, church in Missouri, church in Nauvoo), but in looking at the spreadsheet, I realized that another theme that shows up in nearly every section is Polygamy.

Now I'm not saying that Polygamy is necessarily a bad theme to have. However, there are many themes one could choose for the article, some better than others. For example, Bushman seems to choose a "Revelation" theme in his book. Brodie chooses to focus on "Environment," arguing that Smith drew his revelations (and the Book of Mormon) entirely from his political and cultural surroundings (aided by his genius). Vogel, though I haven't read him, might take a deception-like theme, arguing that Smith went from necromancer to actually believing he was called of God. Pro-Mormon sources might choose themes related to Smith's shining achievements: the miracles and prophecies, the restored doctrines, Christian themes in the Book of Mormon, positive aspects of Smith's character, and his impact for good. Anti-Mormon sources might choose themes that could undermine Smith's authenticity, for example: his failures, controversial doctrines or practices (such as polygamy), his treasure hunting, and his troubles with the law.

That said, I don't think any of the themes that I just listed above are appropriate for the article. Wikipedia needs to be from a neutral point of view. (An example of a neutral theme might perhaps be his founding and leadership of the church.) The History section in particular should be very neutral, and should not try to "prove" anything–good or bad.

Polygamy in the article

Let me take my recurring-theme example of Polygamy, and string together all the polygamy references in the article. (It appears in every sub-section in History after Ohio, and again in both sections after that.) To illustrate an example of what I will call a "picky little fact", I have bolded each time the article says Smith (or those close to him) denied rumors of polygamy.

Ohio

Although the church had publicly repudiated polygamy, behind the scenes there was a rift between Smith and Oliver Cowdery over the issue. Smith had by some accounts been teaching a polygamy doctrine as early as 1831. Sometime between 1833 and 1836, Smith engaged in a furtive relationship with his adolescent serving girl Fanny Alger. Although Cowdery claimed the relationship was a "filthy affair," Smith insisted the relationship was not adulterous, presumably because he had taken Alger as a plural wife. Cowdery, who was in the process of leaving the church, was eventually charged with slander and expelled from the church.

Missouri

Though it had not been an issue in his preliminary hearing, he denied rumors of polygamy, as he quietly planned how to reveal the principle to his followers.

Nauvoo

In April 1841, Smith secretly wed Louisa Beaman as a plural wife, and during the next two and a half years he may have married 30 additional women, ten of whom were already married to other men, and about a third of them teenagers, including two 14-year-old girls. Meanwhile he publicly and repeatedly denied that he advocated polygamy. Smith told at least some of his potential wives that marriage to him would ensure their spiritual exaltation. Although Smith's first wife Emma knew of some of these marriages, she almost certainly did not know the extent of her husband's polygamous activities. Smith kept the doctrine of plural marriage secret except for potential wives and a few of his closest male associates, including Bennett. Smith's plural relationships were preceded by a "priesthood marriage," which Smith believed legitimized the relationships and made them non-adulterous. Bennett, on the other hand, ignored even perfunctory ceremonies. When embarrassing rumors of "spiritual wifery" got abroad, Smith forced Bennett's resignation as Nauvoo mayor. In retaliation, Bennett wrote "lurid exposés of life in Nauvoo."

In 1843, Emma reluctantly allowed Smith to marry four women who had been living in the Smith household—two of whom Smith had already married without her knowledge. Emma also participated with Smith in the first "sealing" ceremony, intended to bind their marriage for eternity. However, Emma soon regretted her decision to accept plural marriage and forced the other wives from the household, nagging Smith to abandon the practice. Smith dictated a revelation pressuring Emma to accept, but the revelation only made her furious.

Death

Both also believed that Smith had proposed marriage to their wives. After one of the dissidents was heard predicting an uprising in Nauvoo, Smith excommunicated them on April 18, 1844. The dissidents formed a competing church and the following month, at Carthage, the county seat, they procured grand jury indictments against Smith for polygamy and other crimes. Smith vehemently denied he had more than one wife.

The paper decried polygamy and Smith's new "doctrines of many Gods," and it alluded to Smith's kingship and theocratic aspirations, promising to present evidence of its allegations in succeeding issues.

Distinctive views and teachings (Theology of family)

Smith taught that the highest exaltation would be achieved through "plural marriage" (polygamy), which was the ultimate manifestation of this New and Everlasting Covenant. Plural marriage allowed an individual to transcend the angelic state and become a god by accelerating the expansion of one's heavenly kingdom. Smith taught and practiced this doctrine secretly but publicly denied it. Nevertheless, Smith taught that once he revealed the doctrine to any man or woman, failure to practice it would be to risk God's wrath.

Distinctive views and teachings (Ethics and behavior)

Smith may thus have felt justified in promoting polygamy despite its violation of both traditional ethical standards and the criminal law.

Legacy (Impact)

Disaffected Saints periodically accused him of mishandling money and property and of practicing polygamy.

Legacy (Family and descendants)

Throughout her life and on her deathbed, Emma Smith frequently denied that her husband had ever taken additional wives. Emma claimed that the very first time she ever became aware of a polygamy revelation being attributed to Joseph by Mormons was when she read about it in Orson Pratt's booklet The Seer in 1853. Emma campaigned publicly against polygamy and also authorized and was the main signatory of a petition in Summer 1842, with a thousand female signatures, denying that Joseph was connected with polygamy, and as president of the Ladies' Relief Society, Emma authorized publishing a certificate in October 1842 denouncing polygamy and denying her husband as its creator or participant. Even when her sons Joseph III and Alexander presented her with specific written questions about polygamy, she continued to deny that their father had been a polygamist.

Brodie on Polygamy denials

For fun, I went to Brodie, who is very thorough in recording Smith's denials of polygamy, and tracked down every time she says Smith denied polygamy (with help from the index). She mentions the following "denials" in her book:

• Pages 185-186 — mentions a resolution made by the church in Smith's absence (in Oliver's hand)
• Page 246 — Smith denies rumors in a letter from Liberty Jail. Brodie is giving a summery of the letter's contents.
• Pages 307-308 — Hyrum attempts to kill rumors "that a sister had been shut in a room for several days, and that they endeavored to induce her to believe in having two wives." The twelve testify Joseph's principles were strictly virtuous, and Joseph gives sermon against "adulterers and fornicators who were making use of his name to sanction their corruption" (noting Joseph believed himself innocent of adultery because he was married to the wives)
• Pages 321-22 — "When the brethren attacked spiritual wifism or polygamy, it was with the mental reservation that "the patriarchal order of marriage" or "celestial order of plurality of wives" was immeasurably different. The prophet's denials of polygamy were never as direct as those of his leading polygamist brethren."
• Page 344 — a quote by Smith: "and I have constantly said no man shall have but one wife at a time, unless the Lord directs otherwise."
• Page 374 — another quote by Smith: "God knows, then, that the charges against me are false...What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can find only one. I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago."
• Page 377 — "Then he went on to add one more to his list of denials of polygamy by declaring that the revelation on polygamy referred to in the Expositor 'was in answer to a question concerning things which transpired in former days, and had no reference to the present time.'" (Italics are Brodie's emphasis on words that were omitted in a subsequent reprinting of proceedings)

Summary of denials

Brodie mentions 7 "denials" total: 1 by the Church (indirect), 2 by church leaders (both indirect), 4 by Smith (2 indirect, 2 fairly direct). Most of the denials are indirect denials, involving what Brodie calls "verbal gymnastics" (i.e. that Smith was denying adultery, spiritual wifeism, etc. but not necessarily his practice of plural marriage).

The article mentions 9 denials total: 1 direct denial by church; 4 direct denials by Smith; 3 direct denials by Emma; 1 direct denial by relief society. Last month there were actually 10 denials. (The Death paragraph contained the sentence, "At a meeting of the Nauvoo city council, Smith again denied that the church was practicing polygamy." I removed that one (here) in September because it was so redundant.) The article does, however, note that "Smith's plural relationships were preceded by a "priesthood marriage," which Smith believed legitimized the relationships and made them non-adulterous" in the Nauvoo section. This is similarly noted in the Ohio section.

Aside from some explanations in the footnotes, the article denials are fairly direct, using language like, "publicly repudiated", "denied", "publicly and repeatedly denied", and (my favorite) "vehemently denied."

In summary, I have to say that the article is surprisingly thorough in reporting Smith's many "denials" of polygamy, and it sounds like somebody had an axe to grind.

Possible solution to Polygamy problem

According to the graph I presented earlier, the emphasis on Polygamy in this article is nearly twice what it should be (compared to Bushman and Brodie). While I am not proposing draconian cuts, I do think I have a solution that could get us a little closer to the right emphasis. I propose adding a subsection to "Distinctive views and teachings" named Polygamy. This could be after, or merged with our current subsection on Theology of family.

Once the section is made, I propose that we:

• Move the Ohio paragraph on Fanny and Oliver to the new Polygamy section
• Delete the sentence in Missouri
• Move parts of the two Nauvoo paragraphs to the new section (specifically the parts about number of wives, marriages, sealings, revelations, Emma, etc.). Leave the parts about Bennett, Expositor, and the details that lead to Smith's death.
• Leave the Death section alone, aside from modifying the "vehemently denied" part :-)
• Move the paragraph in the Theology of family section to the new Polygamy section (or merge the two sections) and eliminate redundancies.
• Cut Emma's four denials down a single "frequently denied" in the Family and descendants section. We really don't need an entire paragraph to hammer in the fact that she denied it.
• In the new Polygamy subsection, cut and add material as necessary to form a coherent and cohesive story.

Comments

Please feel free to leave comments here. -- Adjwilley (talk) 19:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm not sure how to interpret the silence. Perhaps I've unwittingly broken some social norm. Or perhaps people don't want to get involved and prefer to watch from the sidelines. (I imagine I might do the same myself.) Or maybe nobody has had the stamina to read the entire post. I wouldn't blame them for that one. Anyway, my suggestions above are still just suggestions, though I am probably going to begin crafting the new section in my userspace, just to see what it might look like. -- Adjwilley (talk) 00:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I have prepared a rough draft of what the new section on Polygamy might look like. I have consciously tried to stay clear of portraying Smith in a "negative light" (i.e. as a liar and adulterer who couldn't control his libido) or in a "positive light" (i.e. as a Prophet who unwillingly risked his marriage, reputation, and life to obey a commandment of the Lord). I have modified other sections, most notably Ohio and Nauvoo (which I pulled most of the material from) and the paragraph about Emma's frequent denials (where I cut most of the material out–it was mostly sourced to primary sources anyway). I have made several changes to other paragraphs, all of which can be seen here (by looking at the history).

I ended up not merging the Polygamy section with the Theology of Family section, and I recommend that the Polygamy section go immediately after the theology one (which should give a pretty good introduction). To make some of the other sections (Nauvoo and Emma) work properly will require some minor restructuring, such as moving the Nauvoo sentences on Bennett up a couple paragraphs, but nothing too serious. -- Adjwilley (talk) 02:00, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

"Perhaps I've unwittingly broken some social norm. Or perhaps people don't want to get involved and prefer to watch from the sidelines." Or, perhaps, you've done three weeks of work in the last 48 hours and we need to digest it all. Wow, when it comes to research Adjwilley, you... are a machine! :) Padillah (talk) 16:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, It actually took a lot longer than 3 weeks though :-) I started buying sources back in June after this discussion and I've kept Joseph Smith on the back burner until the beginning of October when we started talking about rewriting the Lead. Since then, I've pretty much been here full time, minus a couple of sidetracks, most recently at Early life. If not for that one, I would have started this string of proposals last week. I still have a few more in the oven, but I can slow 'em down if you want. -- Adjwilley (talk) 18:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

New polygamy section (rough draft)

Main article: Mormonism and polygamy

Smith had by some accounts been teaching a polygamy doctrine as early as 1831, and there is evidence that Smith was a polygamist by 1835. Although the church had publicly repudiated polygamy, in 1837 there was a rift between Smith and Oliver Cowdery over the issue. Cowdery suspected that Smith had engaged in a relationship with his serving girl Fanny Alger. Smith never denied a relationship, but insisted it was not adulterous, presumably because he had taken Alger as a plural wife.

In April 1841, Smith wed Louisa Beaman, and during the next two and a half years he may have married 30 additional women, ten of them already married to other men, and ten of them under the age of twenty. The practice of plural marriage was kept a secret, but Smith taught that once he revealed the doctrine to any man or woman, failure to practice it would be to risk God's wrath.

Polygamy (or plural marriage) caused a breach between Smith and his first wife, Emma. Although Emma knew of some of her husband's marriages, she almost certainly did not know the extent of his polygamous activities. In 1843, Emma temporarily accepted Smith's marriage to four women boarded in the Smith household, but she soon regretted her decision and demanded that the other wives leave. In July, Smith dictated a revelation pressuring Emma to accept plural marriage, but the two were not reconciled until September, after Emma began participating in temple rituals and received an "endowment"

Comments? -- Adjwilley (talk) 02:00, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the next logical step would be to preview my changes in the article. I have made an edit with the suggested changes so people can look at the diff and see exactly what I am proposing. If you disagree with anything feel free to make changes or revert. -- Adjwilley (talk) 19:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Picture of artifacts

A replica of the Golden plates with the Urim and Thummim

I read an old talk page discussion here a while ago, in which people were looking for pictures of the plates, urim and thummim, and other artifacts. Since then, I've been on the lookout for such an image. I think I may have found something that could work. -- Adjwilley (talk) 21:43, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

It is a well-executed painting. I have some misgivings about the depiction of the U&T and breastplate being based on William Smith's description, which I think was a bit fanciful, given that William was a teenager when Smith would have been describing them to his family, and nobody else described them like that. (Martin Harris, for example, described the U&T as eight inches wide, with the stones like polished marble.) But by nature, any depiction of them and the plates is going to require some artistic license. I don't have a strong opinion on whether to include this. COGDEN 22:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

It is actually a photograph of a replica. I think the stones are the wrong shape as well, but it is still a nice work. -- Adjwilley (talk) 23:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Where is the replica located at? Also, do you know who took the photograph? Does Wikipedia have copyright clearance from the photographer? COGDEN 00:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I spoke to the person who made these myself, and he emailed me the photos. I had explained the implications of uploading them on Wikipedia (that anybody could copy, redistribute, modify...) and he was perfectly happy with that. He said he had made them intending them to be useful to as many people as possible. -- Adjwilley (talk) 03:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know enough particulars to decide whether the picture is "right" or "wrong" but the caption needs work. It is saying the items are replicas of other items. Not to put too fine a point on it - this assumes that the original items existed in the first place. Even the existence of these items is in question. The caption needs to recognize this. Padillah (talk) 14:16, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree as to the caption. I would call it a three-dimensional artistic interpretation of the plates and artifacts. It is very good artwork, though, and exceptional photography. Where is this located? In a church historical museum? COGDEN 18:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest wording like "An artist's reconstruction of the Golden plates and Urim and Thummim, based primarily on the account of X", where X is "William Smith" or whomever the artist acknowledges as their source material. Since Adjwilley is in touch with the artist, it would be great to find out which accounts influenced the artist's decisions. Mentioning those sources in the caption would be a useful clue to the reader that this depiction is not the only possible one; that other sources might differ in the details; and (nodding to Padillah) that the depiction relies on both the artist and the credibility of the sources. alanyst 18:33, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I hadn't thought about the caption...I just wrote something quick so that it would have one. I also think the caption depends on where the picture lies in the article. "Three-dimensional artistic interpretation" is kind of a mouthful, but something along the lines would probably be fine. My initial thought was "A replica of the Golden plates with the Urim and Thummim based on descriptions by Smith and others" but I'm not picky. I actually tracked down the artist through his company...I don't know him personally. -- Adjwilley (talk) 18:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The plates are based on Joseph Smith's description in "Church History" Times and Season 3 (1 March 1842) p.707; The Urim and Thummim does in fact come from an interview with William Smith (Saints Herald, March 9, 1932, p. 258) (kudos to COgden); The breastplate is from Lucy's biography (shape and straps) with the U&T pocket apparently coming from William's interview.

Also, I've seen the stones described as: white stones, whitish stones, and transparent pebbles (David Whitmer), clear stones (Martin Harris), and transparent stones (Joseph Smith Wentworth letter). Apparently William had tried them on and found that they were too big for his head :-) -- Adjwilley (talk) 02:29, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

When I found the photo, I didn't have a place in mind to put it. (I had just read the discussion that people were looking for a better U&T picture to replace the lovely glasses one.) Does anybody have ideas on this? -- Adjwilley (talk) 19:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I've thought about the placement of this, and I think it could easily replace the Moroni "spectacles" picture. The next best place would probably be lower down in the section about Translation, but that's already a little heavy on pictures. Thoughts? -- Adjwilley (talk) 23:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Exaltation vs. godhood

I think the article is a bit sloppy in the way it uses the terms "exaltation" and "godhood." It seems to use the terms interchangeably, slightly favoring "godhood," and in one case, pipe-linking "godhood" to Exaltation (Mormonism). As an experiment, I decided to see how Bushman and Brodie use the words. I used Google books to search for each of the terms; here are the results:

Article

Exaltation: 6 times

Godhood: 7 times

Bushman (Google book)

Exaltation: 22 (pages with "hits." The actual word count is higher)

Godhood: 3

Brodie (I don't own the Google book, so I only get snippets online)

Exaltation: 3 (can't tell if context is right on all 3)

Godhood: 2 (both times she is using the term "...road to godhood")

It might be helpful to list the three uses of godhood in Bushman.

• "The words "salvation" and "exaltation" contained a world of difference. One implied escape–from sin or hell or Statan–and the other elevation to glory and godhood. Exaltation also meant intelligence, equated by the revelations with light and truth..." (page 210)
• "To those sealed by the priesthood, the promises were startling. When out of the world, the revelation said, sealed couples would pass by the angels and go on to godhood. Their state was quite different from those married by worldly authority." (goes on to say how the capacity to "enlarge" made them, "in effect, gods.") (page 443)
• "Likewise, the progression to godhood could be found everywhere in the scriptures. Christ's prayer in the garden for his followers to be one with the Father meant, in Joseph's reading, we shall be 'as God–& he as the God of his Father'..." (page 544)

Based on what I've read, I think that "Exaltation" should be the primary term used, and "godhood" should be a supplementary term used to describe one aspect of Exaltation. I think it would be appropriate to use the term "godhood" 1-3 times in explaining what "exaltation" is, and then just use the term "exaltation" in other cases. At times, even a simple "salvation" may be appropriate. -- Adjwilley (talk) 14:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, unless a current member or scripture corrects me, I believe "Exaltation" should be capitalized. It is the mechanism that grants godhood (which is a specific state of being). Padillah (talk) 19:33, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it could go either way. I checked Bushman again, and he uses it as a common noun, so I think the safest bet would be to follow his lead. Also, I think WP likes to keep stuff lowercase anyway unless there's a good reason to go the other way. I'm going to go ahead and start making the changes if nobody objects. -- Adjwilley (talk) 23:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Done. I ended up fixing a little more than I intended to, as I noticed a few other problems along the way. One of the problems was with the second anointing (which is related to being sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise, having one's calling and election made sure, or receiving the more sure word of prophesy). The article seemed to imply that this was a run-of-the-mill ordinance, when in fact, Smith only performed it for 18 couples. (Bushman 497) Anyway, I made a couple of changes there as well in an effort to clear up any confusion. -- Adjwilley (talk) 00:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

"an ignoble character of some kind"

I remember stumbling upon a quote by Richard Bushman in a news article a while ago. Speaking of this article, he said, "It just picks its way along from one little fact to another little fact, all of them ending up making Joseph Smith an ignoble character of some kind. And it never really assesses Joseph Smith's achievement." I know that I have felt that way myself, and I've heard the sentiment expressed by others, but it is hard to put a finger on exactly what the problem is.

Picky little facts

As I've said before, I think the history section should be very neutral. It should not contain picky little facts (that is, little facts that are mentioned only to make Smith look "good" or "bad", but are otherwise insignificant). I have made an incomplete list of some picky facts, both "positive" and "negative," that I've found in the history section that I don't think belong there. Some are miracles, or failure to perform miracles; most are picky details aimed at promoting a particular interpretation. Here is an incomplete list with some recommendations for replacement:

• "though the practice was frequently condemned by clergymen and rationalists and was often illegal" should be deleted or moved to a footnote. We don't have to point out every time he might have broken a law or social norm, and as Bushman and Brodie both note, treasure digging was a very common practice. (See, for example, Brodie page 18)
• "when he met Oliver Cowdery, a teacher and dowser,[57] who now became Smith's scribe" should be replaced by "when he met Oliver Cowdery, who became Smith's scribe." The extra details aren't necessary unless the article is about Cowdery.
• "Soon after Smith reportedly performed an exorcism in Colesville" is a miracle that has been given a weasel word name. (The term used by Smith and his followers was casting out an evil spirit. In John Whitmer's words, "he commanded the devil in the name of Christ and he departed to our joy and comfort") Brodie seems to think the episode was important, as it gave Smith confidence that God was with him, but I think it would easiest for us to drop the whole episode.
• "Rectifying what Rigdon perceived as a defect in Smith's church," should also be dropped as it is making the "Environmental" argument. The article is about Smith, not Rigdon.
• "Rigdon's congregation of converts included a prophetess that Smith declared to be of the devil." is an overly specific detail, and should be moved to the preceding footnote.
• "During a malaria epidemic, Smith anointed the suffering with oil and blessed them; but he also sent off the ailing Brigham Young and other members of the Quorum of the Twelve to missions in Europe." is an obvious example of one editor wanting to include a miracle, and then another trying to discount it by pointing out a failure. The sentence should talk about malaria, and then talk about the miracle in the footnote. The next sentence should be about the mission.
• "After a month, he returned empty-handed. Smith then turned to wildcat banking, establishing the Kirtland Safety Society in January 1837" The problem here is using a weasel word to describe a very common practice at that time. I recommend replacing with something like: "...Smith and other church leaders established a quasi-bank called the KSS..."
• "Smith was court-martialed and nearly executed for treason" should be replaced with "Smith was court-martialed and nearly executed." It's doubtful that he was actually guilty of treason and it's not a point that the sources belabor, so I don't see why we should imply it here. I also find it funny that treason is so often wikilinked in the article :-)
• "Smith and his companions tried to escape at least twice during their four-month imprisonment, and on April 6, 1839, on their way to a different jail after their grand jury hearing, they succeeded by bribing the sheriff." True, but at the same time, embarrassed Missouri officials were "reluctant to bring them to trial lest they be forced to acquit them." (Brodie 253) The whole episode "stank to high heaven", and the most convenient solution for Missouri leaders was to let the prisoners escape (on horses they bought from the sheriff). I recommend replacing the sentence with something like, "After a grand jury hearing in Davis County, Smith and his companions escaped custody, perhaps with the guards' connivance, while they were being escorted to Boone County." (I borrowed "connivance" from Bushman page 402.) Then tell the entertaining Sheriff story in the footnote, because it really is entertaining. (By the way, Bushman doesn't even mention the $800 bribe in the text (though it shows up in a note in the back of the book). I'm not that surprised, since it's based on the memory of young Joseph Smith III who wasn't quite seven years old at the time.)

I would like to spend some time fixing these problems, and others like them. I will do my best to stick to the sources and follow WP policies for neutrality, etc. If anybody disagrees with any of the above edits, please say so. Also, if I make changes not listed here, I will leave clear notes in the edit summary saying exactly what I'm doing, so people can easily revert if needed. If there are any major changes, I'll leave a note here as well. -- Adjwilley (talk) 04:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The only suggestion I would have is for "Smith was court-martialed and nearly executed for treason". First off, you can't just drop the reason for the court-martial, that looks bad and it raises curiosity. Second off, it should read "Smith was court-martialed for treason and nearly executed". That word order has annoyed me for months. Padillah (talk) 14:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

That's a great idea, and I agree. I still have a couple reservations about the latter half of the sentence. Samuel D. Lucas, a court clerk (who acted as military general, judge, and jury at the drum-head court martial) had declared Smith guilty of treason after Doniphan's defense and had ordered Doniphan to execute the prisoners. It was Doniphan's response and threat ("It is cold blooded murder. I will not obey your order...if you execute these men, I will hold you responsible before an earthly tribunal, so help me God".) that finally convinced Lucas. Anyway, it's an interesting story, and I thought I'd share since the anniversary was yesterday. Thank you for your comment; I will word it as you suggested. -- Adjwilley (talk) 15:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

One of the nice side-effects of phrasing it that way is there's a much smaller assumption of guilt. Being court-martialed is not the same as being found guilty. It's a trial and the outcome is supposed to be independent of the accusation. We all know that doesn't work perfectly but, it's what we have for now.

Also, I was looking at the wildcat banking and I think there's a better way to phrase it. What Smith and the others established was a Joint Stock Company that acted as a quasi-bank. Maybe try something like this "After a month, he returned empty-handed. Smith and the others then set up a joint stock company to act as a quasi-bank, establishing the Kirtland Safety Society in January 1837." Padillah (talk) 16:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm about done for the day. I saw several other changes I'd like to make, but I didn't want to go too far without proposing them for discussion on the talk page. I ended up using Padillah's treason wording, though I dropped the wikilink to treason (I don't imagine too many readers scratching their heads wondering what treason is). I also used the joint stock company suggestion. I added the bit about baptisms, because the way Bushman tells the story, those were more closely related to the mob threats and trials than was the "exorcism." -- Adjwilley (talk) 23:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

A few caveats from your friendly non-Mormon

Many of the changes (mostly cuts) made by Adjwilley during the past few days have been salutary, innocuous, or although pro-Mormon in implication, of no great significance to the neutrality of the article. Nevertheless, this article is supposed to be NPOV, giving at least as much weight to non-Mormon, as to Mormon, attitudes about Joseph Smith. In the quotation cited by Adjwilley above, Richard Bushman, the finest biographer of Joseph Smith and a former LDS bishop in good standing with the Church, said that this article was "technically accurate" but had ended by "making Joseph Smith an ignoble character of some kind." That's high praise to a non-Mormon like me. I felt gratified to have helped write a accurate article that made Joseph Smith look like "an ignoble character" because that's what I believe he was.

Let me give examples of two of Adjwilley's changes that seem attempts to hide legitimate negative information from the reader:

• The excision of the following phrase from the discussion of Smith's practice of money digging through occult means: "though the practice was frequently condemned by clergymen and rationalists and was often illegal." Quinn's quotation (given in the footnotes) makes it clear that every state had laws forbidding this practice and that it was widely condemned by clergymen and rationalists.
• Mention of Fanny Alger has been removed from its chronological moorings to be stuck in a general section about polygamy. Yet Smith's relationship with Alger is only polygamy in Mormon hindsight. Neither Smith nor Alger said they had engaged in a polygamous relationship. More importantly both Bushman and Brodie treat the Alger affair earlier and outside their general comments on Smith's polygamy.

The idea that a non-Mormon like myself could "own" a Wikipedia article like Joseph Smith is absurd. Non-Mormons will always be outnumbered by Mormons here. Nevertheless, non-Mormon voices such as mine need to have full weight, especially if there's any notion of moving this article to GA status.--John Foxe (talk) 17:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

All due respect, that's not what NPOV means. NPOV means we report the facts regardless of whether that makes him look good, bad, or ignoble. How it makes him look is a judgement call and, as you pointed out yourself, not always viewed the same way by different people. Padillah (talk) 18:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I do agree that the circumstances of the Fanny Alger case make moving mention of her to Polygamy disingenuous. All Smith ever claimed was that it was not adulterous. He never gave more information than that and he never brought her up later when he had claimed the practice. For us to casually presume why and what he meant is not good practice. The presumption should be removed and the mention restored to chronological order. Padillah (talk) 18:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

@John, Thank you for your thoughts. I do value your opinions, and I think this dialogue is very important. This ideology of having "Mormons" vs. "Non-Mormons" is precisely the thing I am trying to get away from. We shouldn't overly concern ourselves with trying to present "Mormon" or "non-Mormon" points of view, and how much weight to give each. This is because Wikipedia policy clearly states that articles should reflect the "opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves." (WP:RS) For this reason, I think we are extremely fortunate to have an opinion from the Richard L. Bushman, who is arguably the most reliable source on Joseph Smith we have today.

I really believe that we can solve our differences if we stick closely to the sources. This article cites Bushman and Brodie quite a bit, however it fails to capture the essence of Bushman and Brodie. They make it clear that Joseph Smith was no ordinary person. People can (and do) read those books and still come away thinking that Smith was either a prophet or a fraud. And that's ok. However, one thing that nearly everybody agrees on is that the man was larger than life; and that is what the article fails to capture. "...an ignoble character of some kind" is not how the reliable sources portray Smith, and I'm fairly certain it wasn't meant as a compliment.

A couple comments on the two examples John Foxe provided.

• • The illegality of treasure digging in some regions is actually a very good example of a little fact that was cherry picked with a particular agenda in mind, and it's not a point that Brodie and Bushman bring up (that I can find at least). Instead, Bushman spends a good amount of time talking about how "Money-digging was epidemic in Upstate New York" (page 50) and gives specific examples of the upright citizens (Methodist minister, Presbyterian, etc.) who engaged in it. Brodie goes even further, suggesting on page 18 that every farmer in the region was obsessed with finding treasure.
  • You bring up a good point about putting things in chronological order. It works very well in books, because the authors are able to go into sufficient detail on every issue. However, in an encyclopedia article, I think that trying to put everything in chronological order would result in an awkward and bloated article that jumps around a lot and is very hard to read. For this reason, we have a History section that gives us a quick chronological overview, then smaller sections below that discuss specific aspects of his life, referencing the History section as necessary. Integrating one aspect into the history, while leaving others out gives undue emphasis to that particular aspect, whether it be polygamy, doctrine and teachings, cosmology, political views, etc., which is why I proposed creating a new section for Polygamy down by Theology of Family.
  • That said, let me address Padillah's concern about presuming Alger was a polygamous wife. It's true that the only thing Smith said about their relationship was that it was not adulterous. Actually, the only person who thought it was adulterous was Cowdery, but he backed down as well. (Bushman 325). The most important thing, however, is that Bushman is the one who says Alger was a polygamous wife. The presumption is Bushman's, and as he points out, everybody else agreed as well. One small quote: "After the Far West council excommunicated Cowdery, Alger disappears from the Mormon historical record for a quarter of a century. Her story was recorded as many as sixty years later by witnesses who had strong reason to take sides. Surprisingly, they all agree that Joseph married Fanny Alger as a plural wife." He then goes on to give specific examples of non-Mormons, anti-Mormons, and Mormons who all say that Fanny was a polygamous wife. Bushman then dives into a discussion of polygamy and plural marriage. Of course we don't have space to do all that in the Ohio section, and that's why I moved it down to the section on Polygamy. -- Adjwilley (talk) 20:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Just a note about Alger: I didn't have Brodie's book with me when I wrote the last post, but I just looked up Alger in the index, and the entry is: "Alger, Fannie, plural wife of Joseph Smith, 181-2, 301, 335;" The 181-2 is the chronological introduction, followed immediately by a discussion of Polygamy (pages 183-189). Page 301 is talking about Smith's next plural wife (chronologically) and mentions Fannie. Page 335 is a list of all of Smith's wives, and shows Fannie as the second (after Emma) with an assumed marriage date of 1836. -- Adjwilley (talk) 23:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

If one believes Joseph Smith was a prophet, he would not believe him to be an ignoble character; if one believed him to be a fraud then he would believe him to be an ignoble character—unless, I suppose, he were an admirer of frauds. A historical figure can be charismatic and "larger than life" and still be ignoble, as for instance, Muammar Gaddafi.

I'm all for sticking with the sources, but Bushman and Brodie are not the only reliable sources. Brodie did a remarkable job of historical research and writing for a woman in her 20s, but if her book were a person it would be eligible for Medicare.

Richard Bushman is a fine scholar and a fine person, but he's a Mormon with a Mormon agenda. The material about the prevalence of treasure hunting through occult means is a good example of his trying to put the best spin on a matter of embarrassment to the contemporary LDS Church: anecdotal evidence without hard numbers and no attempt to refute Quinn's clear statement. If it were true that gold digging was endemic in upstate New York, then we should be aware of many other men of the era who engaged in it or at least whose lives intersected with it, but I know of none. Unless you can find evidence to refute Quinn, a phrase about treasure hunting being condemned by intellectuals and clergymen should stand in the body of the article, not be relegated to the footnotes.

Brodie treats Fanny Alger separately from her main chapter about polygamy, which she unambiguously titles, "If a Man Entice a Maid." Alger's story should stand in its proper chronological order even though it's embarrassing to Mormons to have Joseph's putative adultery with a teenager mentioned so early in his career.--John Foxe (talk) 20:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you addressed any of the problems I pointed out above, but I'm concerned with a more serious issue here. You frequently say that Bushman is the most reliable source, however, whenever he disagrees with you, you dismiss him as a Mormon and run for other more obscure sources. I think you should have more substantial reasons for dismissing Bushman and Brodie than "Well he's a Mormon and she's old."

I took some time and looked up your reference on Quinn. You stated, "If it were true that gold digging was endemic in upstate New York, then we should be aware of many other men of the era who engaged in it or at least whose lives intersected with it, but I know of none." I would suggest that you read pages 25-28 in Quinn's book. He cites the Palmyra newspaper on numerous people taking up treasure digging, and notes that "some of the respectable media actually encouraged treasure-digging." He gives more examples than I care to count, including a Methodist clergy acting as diving rodsmen and treasure-seekers, a Universalist minister, Reverend Joseph Avery (Congregationalist mister and rodsman), a parish clerk in the Church of England, and mind you, each one of these has his own paragraph.

You also seem to be using Quinn to make arguments that Quinn himself didn't intend. For example, on page 30 (the one you are citing about clergy condemning treasure digging) Quinn openly states, "the substantial evidence of [the Smith family's] participation in treasure-seeking in no way discredits Joseph Smith or his family." Also, in his introduction, Quinn writes, "my purpose is not to demean Joseph Smith as a prophet or to proselytize. I seek to appreciate in greater depth (and with greater fidelity to the evidence) a man who, I believe, was remarkable." (xxxviii) -- Adjwilley (talk) 22:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say Bushman was the "most reliable source," just that he had written the best biography of Joseph Smith. Often other sources such as Quinn, Shipps, and Vogel are better sources because they're unburdened by Bushman's desire to live at peace with the General Authorities. If you want to exclude other sources from being cited here, you'd have to make the case that they're not WP:RS. You'll find that tough.

As for Quinn's examples of those engaged in treasure hunting, they're all obscure; but the bemused critic of this occult practice is not: Benjamin Franklin (28).

I like that quotation from Quinn, a believing Mormon of a sort. It follows his declaration that every state "had laws against various forms of divination," and that "many early Americans regarded participation in the folk magic of treasure-seeking as disreputable," statements you want to exclude from the text. I agree with Quinn that we need to emphasize Smith's magical practices in this article so that, one and all, we can not "demean Joseph Smith" but "appreciate [him] in greater depth."

I note that you've said nothing about Fanny Alger. Have you conceded my point?--John Foxe (talk) 23:33, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying your statement about Bushman. The point that Quinn is making is that even though treasure digging was condemned by rationalists, the practice was ubiquitous. This was the state of affairs that Smith was born into (29). He never says or implies that Smith was breaking any laws, and doing so in the article would be WP:SYNTH. (i.e. "Quinn says treasure hunting was illegal in many states. Quinn also says Smith participated in treasure hunting. Therefore, Smith was breaking the law.")

I still disagree that Quinn can be used to determine how much emphasis to give to "magic" in the article. Quinn's book is focusing on Magic and Mormonism, and is not meant to be a biography. He zooms in on any magic-related aspects of Smith's life, because the book is about magic. There are thousands of books that focus on other aspects of Smith's life, and there is no reason that Magic should receive preference over other aspects, unless you can demonstrate that it gets that extra weight in mainstream, reliable biographies like Bushman and Brodie. Also, you seem to be using a different definition of "magic" and "occult" than Quinn.

I didn't bring up Alger again because I had already given my arguments in bullet points 2 and 3 above, and your later posts did nothing to address the issues I raised. For your convenience, I will present a summarized version of my argument again.

• • • • Books are able to treat most things chronologically because they have space to talk about every detail after they introduce it. If we tried to treat all Smith's doctrines and practices chronologically here, we'd end up with a bloated and confusing article that jumps around a lot.
      • All Mormon and Non-Mormon witnesses called Smith's and Alger's relationship polygamy.
      • Brodie and Bushman both call Smith's and Alger's relationship polygamy.
      • Brodie and Bushman both follow their introduction of Alger with a lengthy discussion of polygamy. (In Brodie's case, she has 2 pages on Alger followed immediately by 6 pages on polygamy)
      • Brodie openly calls Alger Smith's first polygamous wife, and lists Alger second in her table of Smith's wives, with an assumed marriage date of 1836.
      • So far, you have not presented a reliable source that says their relationship was an adulterous affair, and not polygamy.
      • So far, you have not given a compelling reason for why Polygamy should receive extra emphasis by being integrated into the History section, while other topics such as doctrine, teachings, cosmology, political views, religious authority, etc. are confined to their own sections at the bottom.

Anyway, we are beginning to go in circles here, and I think a third opinion would be helpful at this point. -- Adjwilley (talk) 15:34, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not necessary to prove that Smith and Alger's affair was adulterous rather than polygamous. In fact, it doesn't make a difference what we call a sexual affair between Smith and a teenager living in his house. Just put the information in the proper chronological order and let the reader decide. Bushman did, Brodie did. We can take a chance on the "bloated and confusing article" that might result from turning the spotlight on this episode in Joseph Smith's career.

As for Quinn, he's a WP:RS who can't be excluded when you don't like the implications of what he has to say. His book's not just about magic; it's about Early Mormonism and the Magic World View. (How can you argue that Smith wasn't breaking the law by treasure hunting, when he was brought to trial for treasure hunting?) As for the ubiquitousness of treasure hunting in early 19th century New York, its like the ubiquitousness of cannabis use today. There are laws against it, and plenty of Americans believe smoking it is "disreputable."--John Foxe (talk) 22:12, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that Smith didn't break any laws. I'm just saying that making that argument in the article would be WP:SYNTH, since there don't seem to be any reliable sources saying specifically that Smith broke treasure hunting laws. You still haven't given a compelling argument for why Polygamy should be integrated into the History section, but not Doctrine, Teachings, Cosmology, Political views, Religious authority, etc. -- Adjwilley (talk) 00:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

There's no more synthesis than in the statement that treasure hunting was illegal than in the implication that it was common. As for Smith's affair with a teenager under his roof, let the reader decide. Don't deliberately try to hide Smith (and Alger's) sexual immorality because it's embarrassing to Mormonism. Every investigator of Mormon claims would want to know; every Mormon missionary would try to prevent him from knowing. Let the reader decide if Smith's "dirty, nasty, filthy affair" was polygamy or no.--John Foxe (talk) 11:14, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, I see three issues: 1) The commonality of magic at the time 2) The assumption of the legality of magic at the time 3) Fanny Alger. So, my two cents...

1) "Common" is a subjective term. How many people have to know about something for it to be considered common? There's also the question of how many people knew vs. how many people practiced. Knowing about it doesn't make more people follow it. And then we come to knowing how many people practiced it vs how many people kept their mouth shut about doing something illegal

I wonder about the need to comment on the commonality of magic. Is that significant? Is this something brought up by Bushman, Brodie, or Quinn? Did they use it to soften the blow? Because, let's be honest, without a source that notes why the commonality of the practice is notable that is what it looks like to me. It's a teenagers argument - "Everyone else is doing it". If there is a source that notes the importance of commonality then we have an objective statement to reference in the article. If not, drop it. He practiced magic. Simple statement, no aggrandizement.

2) I have the same question with this that I had with the other - Why is this statement in the article? Is it a stepping stone to other parts of his biography? Is it a cornerstone to an argument an objective biographer has pointed out? This seems like it's here to either balance out the mention of how common the practice was ("Yeah, but it was still illegal") or as a way to twist the knife ("AND, it was illegal too"). Neither of these serves a purpose in this article. However, if there is a reason to keep it, a reason to mention the illegality in connection with Joseph Smith i.e. when he is brought up on charges, then it should go there. At that point in the story there is a reason to bring up the subject that has a direct intersection with Joseph Smith's life. We can't very well say he was brought up on charges and NOT tell you what the charges are. BUT, there is no reason to simply wander aimlessly around the narrative proclaiming this one infraction repeatedly. He was charged with the practice of magic. simple statement, no aggrandizement.

3) Everyone agrees she was his first polygamous wife. Well, almost everyone. Smith never claimed her as a polygamous wife. Ever. And not simply because she was gone by then. He had plenty of opportunity to accept her as a polygamous wife and did not. The argument that "All Mormon and Non-Mormon witnesses called Smith's and Alger's relationship polygamy" is of no consequence. Every body knows Queen Isabella didn't give Columbus ships because she knew the Earth was flat. Everybody knows that Nero fiddled while Rome burned. And Everybody knows George Washington had wooden teeth. Except none of those are true. We even have a page (worthy or not) of Common Misconceptions here on WP. Just because everyone thinks it's so doesn't make it so. Everyone thinks Adam and Eve were kicked out of the Garden of Eden for eating the Fruit Of Knowledge. That's not true either. So what we do have are rumors and allegations. So that's what we post. We mention the allegations by Crowley and the vehement and repeated denials by Smith and that's what we have. Simple statement, no aggrandizement. Padillah (talk) 20:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

@Padillah, Thank you for your comments. I'll quickly respond to a few of your questions.

1) Bushman, Brodie, and Quinn all emphasize the commonality of treasure seeking and magic. Brodie, on page 21, goes so far as to say that the details of Smith's magical practices are unimportant because they were common.

2) Bushman and Brodie don't mention that Smith's treasure seeking or magical practices might have been illegal. Quinn says that states had laws against various forms of divination, without specifying which ones. He also stops short of saying that treasure digging in New York was illegal, saying only that it was "disreputable." I recommend that you read the page in question, which I have uploaded here. Note that the previous chapter has focused on how commonplace folk magic was in 18th century America, and the previous several pages are the ones talking specifically about the commonality of treasure hunting.

3) You're exactly right in saying that "All Mormon and Non-Mormon witnesses called Smith's and Alger's relationship polygamy" is of no consequence. (Smith never said much about his plural wives anyway.) What matters for us is what the reliable sources say, and so far, they all have called it polygamy. I think Foxe's argument is that he wants to remove Alger from the section on Polygamy and put her in the Ohio paragraph so that it looks like adultery. -- Adjwilley (talk) 23:32, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

1) Then it looks like we have our statement. Something along the lines of "several biographers note the commonplace practice..." should be fine.

2) Whether they mention it or not, if we mention him being brought up on charges we should mention the charges. It would be slap-dash of us to mention he was brought up on charges and not mention what the charges were. It could even be construed as POV hiding of material.

3) In this instance what the reliable sources say is conjecture and we can't use that. If there was a reliable source that said "Smith confided in me that Alger was his first plural wife" you'd have a point. But we can't turn conjecture into fact just because "most people say". That is WP:SYNTH. Your example above, "magic was illegal, Smith practiced magic, therefore Smith did something illegal" is not WP:SYNTH, it's inductive reasoning. Letting conjecture push us to proclaim a fact in the absence of real proof is not acceptable. We can mention the wide-spread conjecture, but we can't change it to a fact and present it as such. Padillah (talk) 13:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

(Edit) I agree that moving it to the Ohio section can make it look like adultery. But the fact remains that it does look like adultery. Even Cowdery (apologies for getting it wrong above) believed it so strongly it contributed to his being excommunicated. It is unfortunate that it looks bad, but that shouldn't excuse us to change conjecture to fact. Padillah (talk) 13:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

1) That sounds pretty reasonable.

2) Smith was charged with being a "disorderly person" in the trial. He was accused by a nephew of Stowell, the man Smith was working for, who thought his uncle was being deceived. (Stowell actually defended Smith in the trial)

3) The example you gave is certainly not WP:SYNTH. However, if we stick more closely to Quinn's actual wording, "States had laws against various forms of divination; Smith practiced treasure hunting; treasure hunting is a form of divination; therefore Smith broke the law" that is SYNTH. The logical fallacy is assuming that Treasure Hunting was illegal in New York because states had laws against various forms of divination. That was the example I meant to give above, sorry for the miscommunication.

4) Anything we say at all about Alger is going to be conjecture. We don't know what happened, or if anything happened at all. In cases like these, Wikipedia policy would have us err on the side of reliable sources like Bushman and Brodie, and they both call it polygamy. Also, the article is a little misleading about why Cowdery was excommunicated. It said "expelled for slander" as if his expulsion was a direct result of him accusing Smith. The fact is that Cowdery wasn't excommunicated until 1838, two years after Alger had left the state, and only one of the nine charges brought against him was "insinuating that Joseph had committed adultery." (Bushman 347). The other charges were more serious, involving things like using his high church position to make money, open a law practice, and obtain political office, and "virtually denying the faith." So, you're right, anything we call it is going to be presumptive, but calling it adultery is a much bigger stretch than calling it polygamy, primarily because we don't have any reliable secondary sources that call it adultery. -- Adjwilley (talk) 15:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Brodie actually says, "When in later years polygamy had become an accepted pattern in Mormon life, Joseph's leading elders looked back to the Kirtland days and concluded that Fannie Alger had been the prophet's first plural wife." (182)--John Foxe (talk) 15:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

If you look up Alger in the index, the entry is: "Alger, Fannie, plural wife of Joseph Smith, 181-2, 301, 335;" Pages 181-2 contain the chronological introduction, followed immediately by six pages on Polygamy (pages 183-189). Page 301 is talking about Smith's next plural wife (chronologically) and mentions Fannie as the first. Page 335 is a list of all of Smith's wives, and shows Fannie as the second (after Emma) with an assumed marriage date of 1836. I think we can safely assume that Brodie calls Fannie a wife, since she went to the trouble of calculating a marriage date. -- Adjwilley (talk) 15:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

(EC)

2) Then "disorderly person" it is. This article is complicated enough without us attributing malice from 100 years ago. Leave it at the proper charges brought against him.

3) Ah, OK. I read "treasure hunting was illegal" above and went forward with that. If that was not, in fact, the case you are correct. Misstating it as being the case would be SYNTH. Good catch. Let's keep it to what he did, what he was charged with, and why the charges were brought.

4) What Brodie (or Bushman, or the "leading elders" for that matter) think it was is not the point. Smith had plenty of time to claim Alger as a plural wife and didn't. This isn't a case of him not getting a chance to present his arguments. Smith never made the claim. Also, you are making the assumption that I am arguing for the Alger affair to be called adultery. I'm not. I'm arguing that it not be "called" anything. Simply presented to the reader as it stands. Smith had a relationship with Alger while she was employed in their home. An argument could be made that Crowley accused Smith of adultery, but it could also be mentioned that Smith never admitted adultery and took steps to convince Crowley otherwise. As for Crowley's excommunication, how many of the charges should have been "insinuating that Joseph had committed adultery"? It was significant enough to be listed along with "virtually denying the faith", that's pretty significant if you ask me. In any case neither Crowley nor anyone else has proven that Smith regarded Alger as a plural wife or not. That being the case I don't think it falls to us to change the assumptions Bushman and Brodie make into facts. I have no issues listing Alger in the Polygamy section as being mentioned as one of his plural wives by several biographers. But I don't think we should go so far as to change allegation to fact. In this I hold with Lawrence Foster, "earlier sexual relationships may have been considered marriages, but we lack convincing contemporary evidence supporting such an interpretation." That is not an argument to call them adultery, it is an argument against calling them anything. Smith had an intimate relationship with Alger. That's it. That's all we know. Padillah (talk) 16:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

My apologies for misunderstanding your intentions. I would argue further that saying "Smith had an intimate relationship with Alger" is also more than we know. There's no hard evidence that the relationship was intimate. I'm not sure I understand your question above where you ask "As for Crowley's excommunication, how many of the charges should have been "insinuating that Joseph had committed adultery"?" Insinuating was just one of nine separate charges. The trial took place a year after Smith and Cowdery's confrontation in 1837. Also, saying that "Smtih had plenty of time to claim Alger as a plural wife" doesn't really work, because he didn't claim any of his plural wives. Even Emma didn't know about most of them, and biographers estimate different numbers of wives, ranging from 30 to over 60.

I think it would be helpful to get down to specifics here. Currently the sentences on Alger read, "Although the church had publicly repudiated polygamy,[329] in 1837 there was a rift between Smith and Oliver Cowdery over the issue.[330] Cowdery suspected that Smith had engaged in a relationship with his serving girl Fanny Alger.[331] Smith never denied a relationship, but insisted it was not adulterous, presumably because he had taken Alger as a plural wife.[332]" Perhaps "over the issue" is a problem, since it argues that the issue was polygamy. Also, I could see changing "Cowdery suspected that Smith had engaged in a relationship with..." to "Cowdery suspected that Smith had an affair with..." Thoughts? -- Adjwilley (talk) 16:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break

First off, you presented Cowdery's insinuation as insignificant to his excommunication because "only one of the nine charges" was the insinuation. My question was directed at determining how many of the nine charges should it have been to be significant. My argument was that being listed along with "virtually denying the faith" adds significance to it rather than detracts. In any case, both points you raised are valid - no one knows what happened (even Alger didn't remark after Smith's death) and Smith never claimed any plural wives. So we are left with church records and conjecture. Reliable conjecture, but conjecture nonetheless. Given the sentence you proposed, I think it needs to be moved to a more neutral place in the article. The sentence is using polygamy to introduce the affair and, as you noted, that's not helpful. To mention here that the Alger affair is considered by most to be the first real plural marriage may be appropriate. I think the 1831 - 1838 section is a fine place for it. There's a lead-in sentence in the last paragraph "Nevertheless, after the dedication of the Kirtland temple in late 1837, 'Smith's life descended into a tangle of intrigue and conflict' and a series of internal disputes led to the collapse of the Kirtland Mormon community." That seems to me like a fine place, both chronologically and prosaically, to introduce the Cowdery accusations. Something like... "In 1837 a rift developed between Smith and Oliver Cowdery. Cowdery suspected that Smith had an affair with his serving girl Fanny Alger.[331] Smith never denied a relationship, but insisted it was not adulterous. Also, building the temple left the church deeply in debt...(etc)". By the way, what is the "disembodied quote" in the middle of the lead-in? Is that from someone? Shouldn't it be explained? Or, at least, attributed? Padillah (talk) 17:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Addendum: In looking at the diff in the article I don't think it needs quite that much press. The above is all that is really necessary. The ages of several of his documented wives are readily available and mentioned already in the Polygamy section. There's no indication of the relationship being secret. In fact Smith admits to it openly. The rest is about Cowdery, not Smith. Padillah (talk) 18:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I thought a table might be helpful, showing what various sources (primary and secondary) say about the matter. -- Adjwilley (talk) 19:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Primary sources arguing polygmay	Primary sources arguing adultery	Primary sources arguing not adultery
Ann Eliza Webb Young (Anti-Mormon, saying Alger's parents considered it an honor to have their daughter sealed to Smith), Anne Eliza's father, Chauncey Webb (former Mormon, took Fanny in after she left Smith's household), Mosiah Hancock (Alger's cousin, a Mormon, saying Smith asked Alger's parents for permission to marry and received their consent, and that his father, Levi Hancock performed the ceremony), Benjamin Johnson (Mormon), Heber C. Kimball (Mormon), Andrew Jenson (Mormon) (all sourced in Bushman and Compton)	Oliver Cowdery (Mormon, who was leaving church)	Joseph Smith, David Patten, and pretty much everybody but Oliver
Secondary sources arguing polygamy	Secondary sources arguing adultery	Secondary sources arguing not adultery
Bushman, Brodie (assuming a marriage date of 1836), Compton (concluding that Smith began practicing polygamy in 1833)	Brodie might think that religious polygamy was an excuse for adultery. Nevertheless, she presents Alger in terms of polygamy. The reader should be left to judge whether or not polygamy was moral.	Bushman.

Cowdery never retracted: "The most that Joseph could wring from Oliver was an admission that he had never heard the prophet acknowledge his guilt." (Brodie, 182)

I think the phrasing could be compromised by ignoring the connection with Cowdery. We could simply say that Smith had a "relationship" with Alger; if the reader wants to believe that Smith's relationship with a teenage serving girl was non-sexual polygamy, that's his prerogative. But it's clear, as Brodie says, "that the breath of scandal was hot upon his neck." (181)--John Foxe (talk) 20:03, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

True. I had misread the statement "Joseph did not deny his relationship with Alger, but contended that he had never confessed to adultery. Cowdery had apparently said otherwise, but backed down at the November meeting." -- Adjwilley (talk) 20:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

(EC) @Adjwilley, I can't agree to call it polygamy. The fact remains that no one knows and Smith and Alger never said. If some historian some day finds proof that it is one or the other, we can change it then. I don't know if we can just not mention Cowdery, he is the only one that disagreed with the relationship. He is the one that caused the rift. It would seem lacking to suggest that there were allegations without noting that only one man made them. Padillah (talk) 20:34, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful to clarify what everybody is arguing here. I see two issues at stake: placement, and wording. I think that the placement should stay as is (in the Polygamy section), but that the wording needs to be changed to solve problems pointed out above. What do you think? -- Adjwilley (talk) 20:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Fanny Alger needs to go chronologically where she belongs in the story. The wording can be compromised so long as the article says that Smith and the teenage serving girl had some sort of relationship that was one of a number of setbacks to the development of the Church in the late 1830s. If you want to say that later Mormons claimed that Alger was Smith's first polygamous wife, that's fine with me—so long as the story doesn't get buried in the polygamy section.--John Foxe (talk) 22:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I can't refuse to call it polygamy and then agree that it goes in the Polygamy section. That's the same thing. Otherwise, why is it in the polygamy section? If it is not being classified as polygamy, then it doesn't belong in the polygamy section. It's looking, increasingly, like we need a second "third opinion". Adjwilley, you have conceded every point I've made (regarding the lack of definition of the relationship) and yet still insist that the relationship be clearly labeled a plural marriage. I can't support that. The simple statement I made above, in the main body of the article, stands as my best case compromise. Padillah (talk) 13:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

So sorry, I didn't see your revert until after I had made my second edit. My edits were an attempt at compromise, and moved the article closer to a point that I think all three parties could agree on, that is, making it clear that Alger may not have been polygamy, and mentioning the adultery insinuations in historical context. -- Adjwilley (talk) 15:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Not an issue. It's going to be hard to have any statement made under the banner of Polygamy not be seen in the context of polygamy. That was my argument above. You can't blatantly label something polygamy and then try and treat it as if it's not. I very much like the working of the charges of many, not just Cowdery, into the body. That is done very nicely. Padillah (talk) 16:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems that the three of us have points that we are unwilling to budge on. You don't want Alger portrayed as Polygamy (which is fair). I insist that Alger be introduced in the context of polygamy (because that's the way all the sources do it). John Foxe insists that there be something adulterous in historical context. In my second edit, I hoped to appease John Foxe, in my first edit I hoped to appease you (by making it crystal clear that there is disagreement as to whether or not Alger was a wife or not). I saw both edits as "giving a little" on my part. -- Adjwilley (talk) 16:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I never said that I was insisting on having "something adulterous in historical context." I simply asked for the Smith-Alger story, call it what you will, to be placed in historical context not buried in the polygamy section. It's fine with me to say that after Smith's death, Mormons said that Alger was Smith's first polygamous wife.--John Foxe (talk) 16:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

It's hardly buried in the Polygamy section. In fact, it's the most prominent thing there. I'd argue that it's more prominent (and more easily located) currently than when it was buried near the end of the Ohio subsection in the middle of the History section. I'd really like to resolve this discussion, and I've offered a compromise. Are there any points you'd be willing to compromise? -- Adjwilley (talk) 17:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

All I ask is that the discussion of Smith and Alger be moved to its proper chronological place. Everything else is negotiable.--John Foxe (talk) 17:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it goes without saying that Alger should be introduced in the context of polygamy, while being careful to avoid actually calling it polygamy. That's the way all the reliable sources treat it, and that's how the article should treat it. Would a glancing reference to Alger in the Ohio section and then a longer treatment in the polygamy section satisfy you? I really would like for polygamy-related things to stay in the section on Polygamy, for multiple reasons mentioned earlier. -- Adjwilley (talk) 18:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that should work. I'll put up a single sentence with a long footnote, and you can tell me what you think.--John Foxe (talk) 21:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the attempt at compromise. I think it is a step in the right direction, though I am not happy with the sentence. For instance, directly quoting Brodie's most sensational statement about the "breath of scandal" is not the best way to present the facts. I'm on my way to a meeting at the moment, but I think something like "Cowdery suspected" or "rumors circulated" would be better, since nobody knows what actually happened. -- Adjwilley (talk) 23:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I reverted after re-reading the paragraph, because I noticed another problem. The "intrigue and conflict" quote seemed to be a good lead in, but the "lead to the collapse of the Kirtland Mormon community" was most definitely not. What actually lead to the collapse of the community was the KSS bank failure. Alger was only important for Smith's relationship with Cowdery. On a loosely related note, I think the sentence would be much more clear if the "intrigue and conflict" quote was dropped. I'll look more closely at the paragraph and see if there's a way I can get something that works. -- Adjwilley (talk) 00:04, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

After re-reading the section in Bushman, I think post above wasn't entirely accurate, so I'm retracting it. Sorry. I have made another try at compromise, trying to keep it neutral, presenting only the facts (Cowdery accused..), and trying not to insinuate that it was either plural marriage or adultery. I ended up dropping the "descended into intrigue and conflict" direct quote because it wasn't very helpful, and the extra clause got in the way of the sentence. I added a reference that basically said that we don't know if it was polygamy or adultery. Feel free to revert, or comment. I think we're making progress. -- Adjwilley (talk) 00:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

We're making progress. But adding Cowdery to the sentence (without the "dirty, filthy" phrase) implies that he may have been making up a story about Smith and Alger. I think everyone here agrees that Smith and Alger had some sort of relationship.--John Foxe (talk) 14:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

"Cowdery said..." is just fine, and sticks with Wikipedia policy. Besides, to take him at his word in this case would be creating a double standard. "Cowdery signed a statement saying he had seen the golden plates" is much better than "Cowdery saw the golden plates." "Smith said he saw an angel" is better than "Smith saw an angel." "Cowdery said Smith had a relationship" is likewise better than "Smith had a relationship."

I removed "adolescent" because that is not a word the sources use, or a point they stress. Searching Bushman for "adolescent" returned one result, referring to Smith as an early youth. "teenage" and "teenager" gave 3 and 2 respectively with 4 of the 5 referring to Smith as a youth. Besides, "adolescent" borders on being a weasel word. And I'm not convinced by Brodie's math. Bushman says that Alger was 14 in 1830, which would put her at 19 or 20 in 1836 when they were supposedly married (Brodie for some reason says 17). Anyway, that point is not worth arguing, because it's not something reliable sources dwell on.

I think the sentence as it stands is about as close as we can get to Bushman's sentence, "Joseph was accused of false steps in the promotion of a Kirtland bank and of moral transgression in taking an additional wife–or worse." -- Adjwilley (talk) 15:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Grant me the word "teenaged," and we've got a compromise. Alger left the Smith household before her 20th birthday. (You're too young to have a high-school-aged daughter, but when and if a married thirty-something makes a play for this hypothetical child, I guarantee the situation will get tense quickly. In the 19th century, discussions about such things were sometimes punctuated by gunfire.) I like Bushman's sentence, and if you'd like to quote the rest of it here, that would be fine as well.--John Foxe (talk) 16:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I still can't agree about the teen-aged. It's a weasel word, and it's not one that reliable sources use. You are probably right about my hypothetical daughter, but at the same time, back in the day, people got married a lot younger than they do now. On the other hand, Adolescent sexuality in the United States is quite high, and kids today aren't waiting around to get married anyway. -- Adjwilley (talk) 17:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

What's weasel about "teen-aged"? It's true beyond all doubt that Alger was a teenager when she engaged in a relationship with Joseph Smith. Brodie says "seventeen," the Ostlings say "sixteen." In Bushman's footnote he refers to testimony about Smith's "unlawful intercourse between himself and a young orphan girl residing in his family and under his protection." It's a literalistic quibble that none of the sources use the actual word "teenager."--John Foxe (talk) 20:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

May I ask why it is so important to you to use the word "teenage" or "adolescent"? I ask because it doesn't seem to be very important to Bushman. -- Adjwilley (talk) 21:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

One of the interesting things about Bushman's biography is that his notes frequently include less flattering material about Smith, the "on-the-other-hand" stuff that demonstrate Bushman's even-handedness to his academic friends. In my view the quotation about Alger being under Smith's protection is the most damning comment made about the affair. The point, of course, is that Alger was particularly vulnerable: young, in a subservient role, and separated from her family.--John Foxe (talk) 22:08, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I still don't see a compelling reason to emphasize something that reliable sources do not emphasize. I did a Google Books search of Brodie. Teenage and Teenager returned zero results unsurprisingly. Adolescent and adolescence returned four. Three referred to Smith, one to a Mrs. Lightner who had converted in her adolescence. It would seem that Bushman and Brodie see things differently than you do, and I think we should follow their lead. -- Adjwilley (talk) 22:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The first mention of "teenager" in the OED is dated to 1941, so you wouldn't expect to get many hits there. The only reason why "teen-aged" is preferable to the term "adolescent" is that it's broader and we don't know when Alger experienced menarche—although I'd bet it occurred while she was living with the Smiths. "Teen-aged house servant" is just shorthand for Alger's vulnerability mentioned above (not that I excuse her entirely). Consider what's not being said: Brodie calling Alger a "girl," Cowdery's "dirty, nasty, filthy affair," Bushman's suggestion that the involvement may have begun as early as 1831 when Alger was fifteen (statutory rape in many states today), and the possibility that this was the first of a number of occasions when Emma threw women out of their house. Shameful stuff. The word "teen-aged" lets Smith off easy.--John Foxe (talk) 00:08, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

(EC) I've been doing some more research on Alger's marriage date, and there seems to be reasonable consensus that she was married around 1835, the year she turned 19. Brodie apparently over-estimated the date (1836) but under-estimated the age (17), probably because she didn't have a good birth date for Alger (1816). I think it's pretty safe to say she was 18 or 19 though. That said, it would be unduly vague to use the term "teenager" since in 19th century America many women married between the ages of sixteen and nineteen. (And unlike most teenagers today, they were already prepared for marriage.) You'll have to forgive my liberal use of the term "marriage" but that's what everybody seems to be calling it. -- Adjwilley (talk) 00:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Just a note: I hadn't read your post above because of an edit conflict, but we do call Alger a girl in the text. That seems to be sufficient emphasis on her age, and it certainly fits with what Bushman and Brodie call her (that is, a serving girl). -- Adjwilley (talk) 00:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

After reading a couple more articles on Smiths polygamy I guess I will have to concede to placing Alger in that section. It appears none of his marriages are copiously documented and this is no exception. As for using "teen-aged" to communicate Algers vulnerability, I think that's a stretch. She was only "teenaged" through the same technicality that a 12 year old isn't - that is to say her age happened to end with "teen" (as opposed to 12 which doesn't but is usually regarded as a "teenager"). Considering over 20% of Smiths accepted list of wives are under age 18 (even giving him the benefit of the doubt on ones we don't know the age of) I think Fanny is the least of that argument. Padillah (talk) 13:21, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

@Padillah, thank you for taking the extra time to independently research this. -- Adjwilley (talk) 18:22, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break 2

Thast being said I think we need to review how the statistic of the number of wives under 20 came to the article. Is this a piece of SYNTH? Do any of the biographers make note of how many and what age the various wives are? And I mean, on the whole. I know there are lists of them but does anyone place any importance or significance to the ages of anyone in particular or as a whole? If they don't, we can't. We can't just make something significant because we want it to be. But if someone lends a statistic a certain significance we should be wary of ignoring it. Especially in lieu of our own significance. Padillah (talk) 14:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

That reminds me of a Jack Handy quote. "The other day I got out my can-opener and was opening a can of worms when I thought, What am I doing?!" Anyway, these particular statistics are supported by Bushman pages 439 and 492, though one might argue that they are a little bit out of context. For instance, we state that 10 of them were married to other men, but omit the fact that most of these marriages took place with the knowledge and approval of the husbands. Likewise, the ten under twenty statistic is given in a parentheses about the wives having to give up romance, cut themselves off from friends, etc. Brodie tried to make a semi-compressive list of the wives, including their ages, but I've never taken the time to count how many were under 20. I'm also not sure how accurate her list is, and I'd trust Compton over her, but I haven't read Compton. I've made the relevant Bushman pages available pages available here if you're interested. -- Adjwilley (talk) 16:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)